![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Seeing as nobody ever welcomed me to Wikipedia, I have decided to welcome myself:
Welcome!
Hello, Laurence Boyce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia! I do hope you enjoy the place and decide to stay. However, please do not bait the Jesus Freaks, the Mad Mullahs, or the Red Sea Pedestrians, any more than is strictly necessary.
Laurence Boyce 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through some of the articles on books by Richard Dawkins, and noticed the one on River Out of Eden. I see that you have made the majority of contributions to this article, and added a good deal of material. However, I have added a tag to the article explaining that it is not "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry". There is some good information on the preferred layout and tone for articles here and here.
The main reason I listed it is because it currently consists of drawn-out explanation of the book's topics, and a large number of quotes. This isn't particularly attractive or easy to read, for somebody who does not necessarily want a lot of detail. It therefore needs editing to be brought in line with wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to make edits to improve the article, or post a message on the article's talk page or my talk page if you have any questions. I'll also try to do some when I get chance. Thanks. Mushin talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I finished rewriting the article, according to my own criteria, as I could not find any official guide. I just wrote it as a summary of the five chapters, using my own understanding after reading the book for the second time. I did not always present ideas in each chapter in the same order they were presented in the book, because some chapters were not really written at Dawkins' usual level. Chapter two was particularly horrendous; I presented it in a more logical fashion, but kept all facts and statements to sources from this one chapter. I includes some of your original text in the new version, and I moved the previous version to the talk page. Feel free to move more back into the main article when you have a chance. Fred Hsu 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks Fred, it looks good. I feel it may need reducing slightly, but I won't do anything soon – see what others think. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you posted a question about image deletion on Gmaxwell's talk page. You are in fact not allowed to upload so called "fair use" images for your userpage (images with a free content license and public domain images are fine though), it's explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (point #9)), and any such fair use images that are not used in an article will be deleted on sight after 7 days (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I5), that's what Gmaxwell's bot is doing. It's nothing personal, it's just that since we are supposed to be making a free licensed ensyclopedia we want to keep the use of such "unfree" images to a bare minimum, therefore they are limited to articles where no free alternative exist only. -- Sherool (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you had Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg shown on your user page. The image is uploaded under a fair use provision, and Wikipedia policy states that fair use images should not be displayed on any pages outside the main (article) namespace, including user pages. Would you mind removing the image or simply linking to it? (Add a ":" in from of the image, like this: [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]]) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I note that the policy in question is only one month old, [1] prior to that it was a guideline. In either case I regret to say that I will not comply, as the issues under the spotlight are simply too important.— Laurence Boyce 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Laurence It is your right to keep the image or remove it. I would like to have a discussion on the topic you have started. You seem to have something against Islamic treatment of women. Let me clarify that I am not a muslim, but still I have a lot of respect for the way Islam treats women. The only criticism that can be levelled is that it considers men to be superior. Then which religion dosn't. How long will it take us to see us a lady Pope? If you ask me, I would say that women are treated better in Islam. Which other religion has provision for looking after women even after a divorce.— 202.83.39.7 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We had a lady Pope some time ago. It was great.— Laurence Boyce 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the categories from this image? I've returned them for now, as we use the in Category:Neuroscience for keeping track of our related media. S e miconscious • talk 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was a bit hasty. I suppose I removed them because I couldn't quite see why the cats were there in the first place. I feel the best way to organise images is as it's done on Commons, which is why I created this article before Christmas. However, soon after I created the article, copyright notices were placed on all the images, Commons policy being more restrictive as I'm sure you know. I was then expecting the images to disappear fairly rapidly, at which point I was going to reload what I needed to Wikipedia, but for whatever reason, they still seem to be there. As it happens, the cats on Harris have changed recently, and of course they may change again. (We've decided that he doesn't quite qualify as a neuroscientist yet, seeing as he's still doing his PhD.) So I guess that in general I just thought it was bad practice to have duplicated category information within the same wiki, which will inevitably drift out of sync.— Laurence Boyce 13:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it did anyway. I'd be in favour of replacing it unless there was a clear reason to remove. I like the cover you put up better, it is the edition I have. Midgley 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the author photo is unnecessary, especially if he is only one click away. But please return it if you wish.— Laurence Boyce 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is not necessary. I'll leave it and we'll see what happens. Midgley 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
We might as well let it run its course, no? It won't be deleted and a precedent would be set for "speedy keep". (this was done at Evolution recently). That said, I guess removing it is ok by WP:SNOW. Mikker (...) 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted it before I saw this message. I'm not really sure what all these things mean to be honest. I just thought it was anonymous and bollocks.— Laurence Boyce 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to get rid of some of the quotes, but I think those of Pastor Ted Haggard should be left in. Things like “some evolutionists would say…. that the eye just formed itself somehow” and how Rabbi Gluck pointed out that evolution is “just a theory” (this isn’t in yet) are two classic, recurring statements that anti-evolutionists use in an attempt to discredit evolution. Apart from those two statements I don’t think there are many more that need to be left in.
I have to agree with the goodies and baddies separation, but I changed it because this displayed a point of view.
I think you’ve done a good job with the article and you can remove most of the quotes so long as these important quotes (and maybe a short statement near each one about why they’re important) are left in.
Good job and thanks. Miller 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Richard Dawkin’s nickname, a play on Thomas Huxley’s nickname, is “Darwins rottweiler”. I think the teaching and interpretation of evolution in the United States is a very big issue to Dawkins and he mentions Haggards attitude towards this issue in the very next scene; that is how Haggard believes evolution and the book of genesis should be shown as equivalent to one another in a science lesson.
I’m not trying to be biased in this sense; it’s just clear that this is a very big issue to Dawkins and the small number of quotes leading up to where Haggard called Dawkins “arrogant” (I couldn’t stop laughing after I heard that) are very important.
“this is not principally an article about controversies in evolutionary theory, though clearly that does come into it”
I profoundly disagree and it’s only one small section of the article I want to keep the same.
I removed the “goodies and baddies” remarks because I think tongue in cheek humour is not really appropriate.
Thanks for responding so quickly and I hope we can reach an agreement on this section of the article. Miller 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks George. I think what I'm going to do is to put a small note on the talk page, not open a big discussion as such. Then I'm going to try to rework the Lourdes and Colorado Springs sections again – this time minus the irony and taking into account your concerns. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The Colorado Spings section takes out Haggard’s comments with regards to the laws of evolution (not to mention Haggard bringing in Dawkin’s grandchildren) and leaves in the fact that Haggard “responded well” to Dawkin’s comparison of his parish to a Nuremberg rally and the fact that Dawkins is “arrogant”. If that isn’t an NPOV violation I don’t know what is! I’m reinserting Haggards quote and explaining the accusation that Dawkins is arrogant simply for believing in scientific truth.
Dawkins is most well known for his defending of the theory of evolution and how religious leaders disclaim it with ridiculous arguments like “evolution claims the eye just formed itself somehow”. This is arguably the most important quote in the entire program and it is going back in and staying in.
As for your comments on my writing style I have a lot of experience, a good article and a barnstar to my name and I don’t appreciate having my contributions labelled as “rubbish” simply because you don’t like the facts that are mentioned. The last “contributions” before me were made by a Wikipedia bot, not a human user anyhow. Miller 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote about the eye just forming itself isn't "going back in." It was in there already because I took account of your views last time round! In fact you appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick on a number of fronts.
George, I love your userbox, and I love you, and I note your achievements elsewhere. But I stand by my view of these particular edits which I have reverted again. May I urge you to take your argument to the article talk page?
Laurence Boyce 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, that argument is clearly a lost cause. My most recent (and thankfully, last change) is removing the section about “intellectual arrogance”. Leaving the part about Dawkin’s supposed arrogance in while taking that of Haggards away is, in my opinion, an NPOV violation. So long as that last part stays out I’m happy.
p.s. can you post the responce here so I know when it's arrived. Thanks. Miller 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please let's discuss it on the article talk page. Laurence Boyce 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here’s my contribution to the talk page: [2]. I would like to say that I am allowed to edit pages without asking permission or talking about it first and I think I’ll give this up as a lost cause. I’m surprised there’s been so much input from so many users on what is effectively an obscure two-part documentary on channel 4! Miller 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Lies, damned lies, and banks. It wasn’t meant to be vandalism; I’m just getting fed up with you complaining whenever other people edit the article. All the other “lads” have the right to do this and your layout pretty much exactly matched those corny MasterCard adverts.
I don’t know about you, but I think the Colorado Springs and sectarian education sections are fine now. Agree? Miller 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven’t heard from you for a while. Do you believe the article is of acceptable quality with no apparent NPOV violations now? Miller 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you remove your personal comment from mainspace and move it to Hakamia's userspace talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Why?— Laurence Boyce 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just thought I'd bring your attention to the Genesis article. I believe it is POV - although the creationist view of Genesis is highly controversial, there is not the slightest mention of any common objections to it or criticism of it.
Please, to anyone interested, have a look at my comments on the Genesis talk page and join the debate. I am trying to get some balance to the article.- Neural 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Neural. I'm flattered that you might consider me as a sort of theological troubleshooter, but I really don't want to get involved with articles on works of fiction. We ought in a sense to be grateful to creationists – let's face it: without them the article would be fairly poor. I may however add a picture to the article. I like pictures. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Religious studies" indicates only that a book addresses issues related to religion, without any respect to the reader's age, affiliation or lack thereof, and without having to be specific as to what religion is relevant to the discussion. Both the books you mentioned discuss the place of religion (or not) in society, so they could be considered religious studies books. By all means revert if you object. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just noticed that in your "tidy up" of Cambridge University Library on 10 June you deleted a reference to the number of books/magazines deposited per year. Was that accidental, or was there a reason for it? Cheers, Jacky JackyR 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't accidental. I guess I felt that the annual intake for one particular year was not sufficiently interesting, and that in time the information would become dated. But maybe you were planning on updating it every year! Please return it if you wish.— Laurence Boyce 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you're interested in alchemy (your user page), have you discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science yet? JackyR | Talk 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm afraid I'm not terribly interested in alchemy. It's just the pic of the day! As I understand it, alchemy has largely been discredited now.— Laurence Boyce 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Advice: How to use dates on Wikipedia Please don't change the dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates as dd/mm/yy, eg, 12 December 1904. Most Americans use mm/dd/yy, eg, December 12 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use mm/dd/yy. If it is a British topic, use dd/mm/yy. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article written about their country and which was written in their local version of English is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
All dates usually have two square boxes around them, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences. Just hit that and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Type in WP:MS and you'll see the page.
If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. JRawle ( Talk) 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am a bit hazy about dates generally. When to link, when not. I wasn't trying to impose US style, I'm from the UK in fact. I had merely obtained the impression that this was the way it was done on most articles I have seen. No problem. My interest in Harries is very minor, and for all the wrong reasons! Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you included a link to the article on religiosity and intelligence in the Brights movement one. I couldn't help chuckling about that, considering it's my involvement in some of the "IQ society" AfDs of late, and my declared status as a bright, that sparked off the brights AfD. And it addresses the "concerns" of the AfD nominator rather well, too.
Thanks for your efforts! Byrgenwulf 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I’ve placed this here because this is between me and you. Here are some objections to some of the things you said. I’ll probably give this article up as a lost cause because no administrators or others user want to help me. I just thought I’d clear a few things up before I leave. I want to say that I’m not angry at you and I don’t want to appear hostile; I’m just a little frustrated that I can’t change a small section of such a long article. This has never happened to me before. I hope we can stay friends though.
The origin of the moon
According to my Dorling Kindersley science encyclopaedia, my Christmas present in 1998, published in 1997, it is still a valid theory!
ISBN number: 0-7513-5641-7 Relevant page number: 288
The three theories (still valid today) are:
Examination of moon rock samples by NASA has shown that the Moon is made from the same material as the Earth (at least the moon rocks they examined did) so this kind of debunks the last theory. So what I said was true. I think Hawkes misrepresented what his teacher told him when he said the Moon “came from the ocean and was flung into space”. When the Earth was totally molten the ocean didn’t exist. The Moon was formed due to molten material being flung off due to centrifugal force; the ocean doesn’t come into it. This is a hypothesis not a fact at the present time though.
Courtesy
Courtesy is important in everyday life if you are to be respected, but it is vital on Wikipedia. Here is an example of extreme rudeness on you part:
You don’t want to monopolise?!
It seems clear to me that you are trying to monopolise the article reverting my changes four times in a row. Reverting three edits consecutively is supposedly an offence that result in you being blocked from editing, but you’ll be happy to know the administrators were against me….. again.
Good and evil
I am well aware of that and I’m not changing the article in such a way to imply that that is the case (that it's a good versus evil analogy). I only want to edit two sections! In fact the only section I want to change, slightly, is the Colorado Spring section. You revert my small changes every time!
Miller 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: why are you editing so many pages related to Richard Dawkins? [3] Miller 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence,
Can you please remember not to violate (or appear to violate) WP:OWN and try to talk out discussion with Simpsons contributor ( talk · contribs) at talk:The Root of All Evil?. I can't really see what you're arguing about. — Dunc| ☺ 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dunc. I'm sorry that it appears that way, but in fact I have no desire to own the article, which is why I have invited two users in to help progress the article. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I’m aware on Wikipedia anyone can edit the article. I’m sick of being made to feel like I need your permissions first. If you can get away with breaking the 3 revert rule maybe I can. Miller 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone on wiki can edit an article but the comment "OK, that's enough" wasn't necessary on the personal profile 'Clockback'. As it's a personal profile then surely it's up to that person to object to my opinion and not you to tell me what is or isn't "enough". Who died and made you king?!! Miamomimi 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it - I'm new to this. I've just found some help/instruction refs so I'm reading at the moment. As soon as I'm good enough I want to introduce some pages on photo-journalists as some images are iconic but the photographer is often forgotton or given no credit. But I'm still learning just now. And I'd like one of those Boris banners on my user page. All in good time. Miamomimi 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence I see there's a vandal on the Peter Hitchens article. I've Peters email address if it's of any use. I'm sure he'd help if needed. My email is available from my user. All best. Miamomimi 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Boyce. I just thought I'd share a resource I recently came across - the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and the Skeptic's Annotated Qu'ran. In fact it is just the Bible and Qu'ran with the funny bits and loony bits highlighted. It is a treasure-trove of comedy if you like absurd humour. Did you know, for example, that Allah regularly turns humans into apes? You'll laugh. You'll cry and despair as you realize the majority of humans on the earth must be barking mad. - Neural 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Having looked into your chum's actions it seems to be an AOL proxy address which makes things trickier, so I've listed the problems at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and expect someone knowledgeable to take early action. Any recurrence, you can check the advice on that page and report it there yourself. Hope that won't be necessary, ... dave souza, talk 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
1) He does hate the Catholic Church 2) He does encourage people to leave his crap in Churchs
Devilmaycares 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
devilmaycares
09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
His/her last edit to Brian Flemming was two days ago. It is entirely inappropriate to be reporting it to WP:AIV. If you have a dispute with this user, consider taking it to WP:RfC or WP:RfAr. -- Nlu ( talk) 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to imply by your comment on knighthoods that it is impossible to be eminent and a tosser? Out of curiosity have you met Dawkins? :) -- BozMo talk 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it is approperiate to merge moral naturalism and ethical naturalism. It appears to have been five days of silence since I last proposed the merge and the articles appear to discuss the same thing. Canadianism 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you don't agree with comparing Dawkins to Russell and Haekel, to introducing Dennis Noble and Bob May, then please explain why and have a reasoned debate. Or improve the contributions. Simply reverting looks like shielding your hero from reasonable criticism. I have emailed you asking what your problem is, and get no response except reverts. Let's have a proper discussion. NBeale 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you and Sparkhead like to have a go at the notable academic supporters and I'll (re-)draft the critics? NBeale 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm filing a RFC against the behavior of Devilmaycares. I'd appreciate it if you co-signed, or helped to gather evidence. Link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Devilmaycares --- J.S ( t| c) 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Root of All Evil.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This
is a fellow against whom you and I struggled about Brian Flemming. (You and I have also struggled against each other there, but respectfully and in good faith.) — 12.72.70.78 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Love the photo on Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit! Made me laugh on a wet Wednesday morning. Keep up the good work! Snalwibma 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Boy do I miss Talk:Richard Dawkins being a quiet, reasonable place to discuss changes to the article!! Mikker (...) 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RichardCarrier.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I added Carrier's rebuttal too, as he has explicitly taken down Holding on this subject, and at this time has had the last word. Still doesn't mean it all has to stay though. — Coelacan | talk 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to develop and maintain the Sam Harris articles. I know how much effort it can be simply keep vandalism to a minimum, and the pages are top-notch in organization and writing style. Dan Slotman 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Talk:Mike Dickin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www1.talksport.net/presenters/presenter_detail.asp?pres_id=99974, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on [[Talk:Talk:Mike Dickin]]. Then you should do one of the following:
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! tgheretford ( talk) 12:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
..and a happy new year. miamomimi. 86.144.153.81 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Seeing as nobody ever welcomed me to Wikipedia, I have decided to welcome myself:
Welcome!
Hello, Laurence Boyce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia! I do hope you enjoy the place and decide to stay. However, please do not bait the Jesus Freaks, the Mad Mullahs, or the Red Sea Pedestrians, any more than is strictly necessary.
Laurence Boyce 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through some of the articles on books by Richard Dawkins, and noticed the one on River Out of Eden. I see that you have made the majority of contributions to this article, and added a good deal of material. However, I have added a tag to the article explaining that it is not "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry". There is some good information on the preferred layout and tone for articles here and here.
The main reason I listed it is because it currently consists of drawn-out explanation of the book's topics, and a large number of quotes. This isn't particularly attractive or easy to read, for somebody who does not necessarily want a lot of detail. It therefore needs editing to be brought in line with wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to make edits to improve the article, or post a message on the article's talk page or my talk page if you have any questions. I'll also try to do some when I get chance. Thanks. Mushin talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I finished rewriting the article, according to my own criteria, as I could not find any official guide. I just wrote it as a summary of the five chapters, using my own understanding after reading the book for the second time. I did not always present ideas in each chapter in the same order they were presented in the book, because some chapters were not really written at Dawkins' usual level. Chapter two was particularly horrendous; I presented it in a more logical fashion, but kept all facts and statements to sources from this one chapter. I includes some of your original text in the new version, and I moved the previous version to the talk page. Feel free to move more back into the main article when you have a chance. Fred Hsu 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks Fred, it looks good. I feel it may need reducing slightly, but I won't do anything soon – see what others think. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you posted a question about image deletion on Gmaxwell's talk page. You are in fact not allowed to upload so called "fair use" images for your userpage (images with a free content license and public domain images are fine though), it's explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (point #9)), and any such fair use images that are not used in an article will be deleted on sight after 7 days (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I5), that's what Gmaxwell's bot is doing. It's nothing personal, it's just that since we are supposed to be making a free licensed ensyclopedia we want to keep the use of such "unfree" images to a bare minimum, therefore they are limited to articles where no free alternative exist only. -- Sherool (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you had Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg shown on your user page. The image is uploaded under a fair use provision, and Wikipedia policy states that fair use images should not be displayed on any pages outside the main (article) namespace, including user pages. Would you mind removing the image or simply linking to it? (Add a ":" in from of the image, like this: [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]]) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I note that the policy in question is only one month old, [1] prior to that it was a guideline. In either case I regret to say that I will not comply, as the issues under the spotlight are simply too important.— Laurence Boyce 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Laurence It is your right to keep the image or remove it. I would like to have a discussion on the topic you have started. You seem to have something against Islamic treatment of women. Let me clarify that I am not a muslim, but still I have a lot of respect for the way Islam treats women. The only criticism that can be levelled is that it considers men to be superior. Then which religion dosn't. How long will it take us to see us a lady Pope? If you ask me, I would say that women are treated better in Islam. Which other religion has provision for looking after women even after a divorce.— 202.83.39.7 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We had a lady Pope some time ago. It was great.— Laurence Boyce 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the categories from this image? I've returned them for now, as we use the in Category:Neuroscience for keeping track of our related media. S e miconscious • talk 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was a bit hasty. I suppose I removed them because I couldn't quite see why the cats were there in the first place. I feel the best way to organise images is as it's done on Commons, which is why I created this article before Christmas. However, soon after I created the article, copyright notices were placed on all the images, Commons policy being more restrictive as I'm sure you know. I was then expecting the images to disappear fairly rapidly, at which point I was going to reload what I needed to Wikipedia, but for whatever reason, they still seem to be there. As it happens, the cats on Harris have changed recently, and of course they may change again. (We've decided that he doesn't quite qualify as a neuroscientist yet, seeing as he's still doing his PhD.) So I guess that in general I just thought it was bad practice to have duplicated category information within the same wiki, which will inevitably drift out of sync.— Laurence Boyce 13:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it did anyway. I'd be in favour of replacing it unless there was a clear reason to remove. I like the cover you put up better, it is the edition I have. Midgley 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the author photo is unnecessary, especially if he is only one click away. But please return it if you wish.— Laurence Boyce 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is not necessary. I'll leave it and we'll see what happens. Midgley 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
We might as well let it run its course, no? It won't be deleted and a precedent would be set for "speedy keep". (this was done at Evolution recently). That said, I guess removing it is ok by WP:SNOW. Mikker (...) 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted it before I saw this message. I'm not really sure what all these things mean to be honest. I just thought it was anonymous and bollocks.— Laurence Boyce 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to get rid of some of the quotes, but I think those of Pastor Ted Haggard should be left in. Things like “some evolutionists would say…. that the eye just formed itself somehow” and how Rabbi Gluck pointed out that evolution is “just a theory” (this isn’t in yet) are two classic, recurring statements that anti-evolutionists use in an attempt to discredit evolution. Apart from those two statements I don’t think there are many more that need to be left in.
I have to agree with the goodies and baddies separation, but I changed it because this displayed a point of view.
I think you’ve done a good job with the article and you can remove most of the quotes so long as these important quotes (and maybe a short statement near each one about why they’re important) are left in.
Good job and thanks. Miller 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Richard Dawkin’s nickname, a play on Thomas Huxley’s nickname, is “Darwins rottweiler”. I think the teaching and interpretation of evolution in the United States is a very big issue to Dawkins and he mentions Haggards attitude towards this issue in the very next scene; that is how Haggard believes evolution and the book of genesis should be shown as equivalent to one another in a science lesson.
I’m not trying to be biased in this sense; it’s just clear that this is a very big issue to Dawkins and the small number of quotes leading up to where Haggard called Dawkins “arrogant” (I couldn’t stop laughing after I heard that) are very important.
“this is not principally an article about controversies in evolutionary theory, though clearly that does come into it”
I profoundly disagree and it’s only one small section of the article I want to keep the same.
I removed the “goodies and baddies” remarks because I think tongue in cheek humour is not really appropriate.
Thanks for responding so quickly and I hope we can reach an agreement on this section of the article. Miller 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks George. I think what I'm going to do is to put a small note on the talk page, not open a big discussion as such. Then I'm going to try to rework the Lourdes and Colorado Springs sections again – this time minus the irony and taking into account your concerns. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The Colorado Spings section takes out Haggard’s comments with regards to the laws of evolution (not to mention Haggard bringing in Dawkin’s grandchildren) and leaves in the fact that Haggard “responded well” to Dawkin’s comparison of his parish to a Nuremberg rally and the fact that Dawkins is “arrogant”. If that isn’t an NPOV violation I don’t know what is! I’m reinserting Haggards quote and explaining the accusation that Dawkins is arrogant simply for believing in scientific truth.
Dawkins is most well known for his defending of the theory of evolution and how religious leaders disclaim it with ridiculous arguments like “evolution claims the eye just formed itself somehow”. This is arguably the most important quote in the entire program and it is going back in and staying in.
As for your comments on my writing style I have a lot of experience, a good article and a barnstar to my name and I don’t appreciate having my contributions labelled as “rubbish” simply because you don’t like the facts that are mentioned. The last “contributions” before me were made by a Wikipedia bot, not a human user anyhow. Miller 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The quote about the eye just forming itself isn't "going back in." It was in there already because I took account of your views last time round! In fact you appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick on a number of fronts.
George, I love your userbox, and I love you, and I note your achievements elsewhere. But I stand by my view of these particular edits which I have reverted again. May I urge you to take your argument to the article talk page?
Laurence Boyce 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, that argument is clearly a lost cause. My most recent (and thankfully, last change) is removing the section about “intellectual arrogance”. Leaving the part about Dawkin’s supposed arrogance in while taking that of Haggards away is, in my opinion, an NPOV violation. So long as that last part stays out I’m happy.
p.s. can you post the responce here so I know when it's arrived. Thanks. Miller 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please let's discuss it on the article talk page. Laurence Boyce 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here’s my contribution to the talk page: [2]. I would like to say that I am allowed to edit pages without asking permission or talking about it first and I think I’ll give this up as a lost cause. I’m surprised there’s been so much input from so many users on what is effectively an obscure two-part documentary on channel 4! Miller 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Lies, damned lies, and banks. It wasn’t meant to be vandalism; I’m just getting fed up with you complaining whenever other people edit the article. All the other “lads” have the right to do this and your layout pretty much exactly matched those corny MasterCard adverts.
I don’t know about you, but I think the Colorado Springs and sectarian education sections are fine now. Agree? Miller 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven’t heard from you for a while. Do you believe the article is of acceptable quality with no apparent NPOV violations now? Miller 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you remove your personal comment from mainspace and move it to Hakamia's userspace talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Why?— Laurence Boyce 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just thought I'd bring your attention to the Genesis article. I believe it is POV - although the creationist view of Genesis is highly controversial, there is not the slightest mention of any common objections to it or criticism of it.
Please, to anyone interested, have a look at my comments on the Genesis talk page and join the debate. I am trying to get some balance to the article.- Neural 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Neural. I'm flattered that you might consider me as a sort of theological troubleshooter, but I really don't want to get involved with articles on works of fiction. We ought in a sense to be grateful to creationists – let's face it: without them the article would be fairly poor. I may however add a picture to the article. I like pictures. Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Religious studies" indicates only that a book addresses issues related to religion, without any respect to the reader's age, affiliation or lack thereof, and without having to be specific as to what religion is relevant to the discussion. Both the books you mentioned discuss the place of religion (or not) in society, so they could be considered religious studies books. By all means revert if you object. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just noticed that in your "tidy up" of Cambridge University Library on 10 June you deleted a reference to the number of books/magazines deposited per year. Was that accidental, or was there a reason for it? Cheers, Jacky JackyR 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't accidental. I guess I felt that the annual intake for one particular year was not sufficiently interesting, and that in time the information would become dated. But maybe you were planning on updating it every year! Please return it if you wish.— Laurence Boyce 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you're interested in alchemy (your user page), have you discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science yet? JackyR | Talk 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm afraid I'm not terribly interested in alchemy. It's just the pic of the day! As I understand it, alchemy has largely been discredited now.— Laurence Boyce 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Advice: How to use dates on Wikipedia Please don't change the dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates as dd/mm/yy, eg, 12 December 1904. Most Americans use mm/dd/yy, eg, December 12 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use mm/dd/yy. If it is a British topic, use dd/mm/yy. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article written about their country and which was written in their local version of English is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.
All dates usually have two square boxes around them, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences. Just hit that and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Type in WP:MS and you'll see the page.
If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. JRawle ( Talk) 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am a bit hazy about dates generally. When to link, when not. I wasn't trying to impose US style, I'm from the UK in fact. I had merely obtained the impression that this was the way it was done on most articles I have seen. No problem. My interest in Harries is very minor, and for all the wrong reasons! Thanks again.— Laurence Boyce 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you included a link to the article on religiosity and intelligence in the Brights movement one. I couldn't help chuckling about that, considering it's my involvement in some of the "IQ society" AfDs of late, and my declared status as a bright, that sparked off the brights AfD. And it addresses the "concerns" of the AfD nominator rather well, too.
Thanks for your efforts! Byrgenwulf 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I’ve placed this here because this is between me and you. Here are some objections to some of the things you said. I’ll probably give this article up as a lost cause because no administrators or others user want to help me. I just thought I’d clear a few things up before I leave. I want to say that I’m not angry at you and I don’t want to appear hostile; I’m just a little frustrated that I can’t change a small section of such a long article. This has never happened to me before. I hope we can stay friends though.
The origin of the moon
According to my Dorling Kindersley science encyclopaedia, my Christmas present in 1998, published in 1997, it is still a valid theory!
ISBN number: 0-7513-5641-7 Relevant page number: 288
The three theories (still valid today) are:
Examination of moon rock samples by NASA has shown that the Moon is made from the same material as the Earth (at least the moon rocks they examined did) so this kind of debunks the last theory. So what I said was true. I think Hawkes misrepresented what his teacher told him when he said the Moon “came from the ocean and was flung into space”. When the Earth was totally molten the ocean didn’t exist. The Moon was formed due to molten material being flung off due to centrifugal force; the ocean doesn’t come into it. This is a hypothesis not a fact at the present time though.
Courtesy
Courtesy is important in everyday life if you are to be respected, but it is vital on Wikipedia. Here is an example of extreme rudeness on you part:
You don’t want to monopolise?!
It seems clear to me that you are trying to monopolise the article reverting my changes four times in a row. Reverting three edits consecutively is supposedly an offence that result in you being blocked from editing, but you’ll be happy to know the administrators were against me….. again.
Good and evil
I am well aware of that and I’m not changing the article in such a way to imply that that is the case (that it's a good versus evil analogy). I only want to edit two sections! In fact the only section I want to change, slightly, is the Colorado Spring section. You revert my small changes every time!
Miller 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: why are you editing so many pages related to Richard Dawkins? [3] Miller 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence,
Can you please remember not to violate (or appear to violate) WP:OWN and try to talk out discussion with Simpsons contributor ( talk · contribs) at talk:The Root of All Evil?. I can't really see what you're arguing about. — Dunc| ☺ 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dunc. I'm sorry that it appears that way, but in fact I have no desire to own the article, which is why I have invited two users in to help progress the article. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I’m aware on Wikipedia anyone can edit the article. I’m sick of being made to feel like I need your permissions first. If you can get away with breaking the 3 revert rule maybe I can. Miller 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone on wiki can edit an article but the comment "OK, that's enough" wasn't necessary on the personal profile 'Clockback'. As it's a personal profile then surely it's up to that person to object to my opinion and not you to tell me what is or isn't "enough". Who died and made you king?!! Miamomimi 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it - I'm new to this. I've just found some help/instruction refs so I'm reading at the moment. As soon as I'm good enough I want to introduce some pages on photo-journalists as some images are iconic but the photographer is often forgotton or given no credit. But I'm still learning just now. And I'd like one of those Boris banners on my user page. All in good time. Miamomimi 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Laurence I see there's a vandal on the Peter Hitchens article. I've Peters email address if it's of any use. I'm sure he'd help if needed. My email is available from my user. All best. Miamomimi 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Boyce. I just thought I'd share a resource I recently came across - the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and the Skeptic's Annotated Qu'ran. In fact it is just the Bible and Qu'ran with the funny bits and loony bits highlighted. It is a treasure-trove of comedy if you like absurd humour. Did you know, for example, that Allah regularly turns humans into apes? You'll laugh. You'll cry and despair as you realize the majority of humans on the earth must be barking mad. - Neural 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Having looked into your chum's actions it seems to be an AOL proxy address which makes things trickier, so I've listed the problems at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and expect someone knowledgeable to take early action. Any recurrence, you can check the advice on that page and report it there yourself. Hope that won't be necessary, ... dave souza, talk 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
1) He does hate the Catholic Church 2) He does encourage people to leave his crap in Churchs
Devilmaycares 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
devilmaycares
09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
His/her last edit to Brian Flemming was two days ago. It is entirely inappropriate to be reporting it to WP:AIV. If you have a dispute with this user, consider taking it to WP:RfC or WP:RfAr. -- Nlu ( talk) 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to imply by your comment on knighthoods that it is impossible to be eminent and a tosser? Out of curiosity have you met Dawkins? :) -- BozMo talk 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it is approperiate to merge moral naturalism and ethical naturalism. It appears to have been five days of silence since I last proposed the merge and the articles appear to discuss the same thing. Canadianism 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you don't agree with comparing Dawkins to Russell and Haekel, to introducing Dennis Noble and Bob May, then please explain why and have a reasoned debate. Or improve the contributions. Simply reverting looks like shielding your hero from reasonable criticism. I have emailed you asking what your problem is, and get no response except reverts. Let's have a proper discussion. NBeale 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you and Sparkhead like to have a go at the notable academic supporters and I'll (re-)draft the critics? NBeale 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm filing a RFC against the behavior of Devilmaycares. I'd appreciate it if you co-signed, or helped to gather evidence. Link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Devilmaycares --- J.S ( t| c) 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Root of All Evil.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This
is a fellow against whom you and I struggled about Brian Flemming. (You and I have also struggled against each other there, but respectfully and in good faith.) — 12.72.70.78 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Love the photo on Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit! Made me laugh on a wet Wednesday morning. Keep up the good work! Snalwibma 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Boy do I miss Talk:Richard Dawkins being a quiet, reasonable place to discuss changes to the article!! Mikker (...) 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:RichardCarrier.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I added Carrier's rebuttal too, as he has explicitly taken down Holding on this subject, and at this time has had the last word. Still doesn't mean it all has to stay though. — Coelacan | talk 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to develop and maintain the Sam Harris articles. I know how much effort it can be simply keep vandalism to a minimum, and the pages are top-notch in organization and writing style. Dan Slotman 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Talk:Mike Dickin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www1.talksport.net/presenters/presenter_detail.asp?pres_id=99974, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on [[Talk:Talk:Mike Dickin]]. Then you should do one of the following:
It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! tgheretford ( talk) 12:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
..and a happy new year. miamomimi. 86.144.153.81 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |