User talk:Hrafn/archive3

31: 424:

erroneous piping in a link (as suggested by the edit summary), and the first of which restored the term "conservative", which is broader than "fundamentalist" and covers more people who hold the view, correctly restored the term "theory" in association with theories of authorship, and correctly restored the appropriate grammar to a sentence that had gone afoul. Please do not revert again, and take it to the discussion page if you want to introduce these changes back to the article.

385: 1834:. If you'd go the articles Wikilink-ed in that section you'd see that there are appropriate sources at those articles. Instead of slapping a template on a section next time consider adding sources. Frankly, I'm not sure adding sources from the subject article are necessary since they are readily available there. I'll add them this time. Next time please try to work together and not just revert those working alonside you. 261:

then. All three of them(?) are/have been adding copyrighted material, and my goal has just been to get the copyvio stuff out so that we don't get in bigger trouble. I wonder if an AfD might be a better way to go. The person/people adding all the copyvio stuff apparently don't know enough to try to remove the prod tag, but I'm afraid if this gets deleted via prod then it might be recreated again right away. Thoughts?

2950:

ensure that the page remains a standard, properly-referenced article. I changed the controverted "debunked" to "rejected", since it's quite obvious the general meaning of the statement, but "debunked" does carry an obvious POV that "rejected" doesn't. Please don't think I'm going to go and wreck it; I'm well aware that you're doing a far better job on this page, and I'm not going to stand in your way.

468: 530:

not spurious. The explanations that I provided on the article in question were meaningful in both cases. In the first one, I made it clear that restoring the previous edits were, in my opinion, a vote in favor of NPOV. In the second one, I made it clear that I was fixing a broken pipe in a link. Please stop accusing me and go back and read what is actually there.

1616:

shorten it so that the main points were still there but it was easier to read. I also have a question, why is it bad that I removed sourced material? Just because it is sourced does not mean it is particularly relevant to the article or section. Could I then add anything to an article as long as it is sourced?

480:

nature a theory), and by properly referring to a group of adherents to a view by a less-loaded term. The second one was to fix piping in a wikilink. That's what I put in the edit summary. Please don't rush to conclusions about my intentions, nor about who may or may not be my "compatriots". Thanks.

3050:

I simply reorganized the section to eliminate the excessive repetition of sentances and create an easier format to read. Is there a specific problem with the new format that I created that you would like me to change when I attempt to reorganize the section again? (given that your previous action and

2949:

yet remain out of the current controversy: Someone associated with Snoke contacted me, asking me to do something to promote Snoke's position. My beliefs are far closer to Snoke's than to that of the scientific establishment, but please know that I'm well aware of Knowledge standards and I'm going to

2923:

And a question in response: what was Richard Keynes' "substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science"? There's no mention of it in the article, just information on who he's related to. Therefore it's not an unreasonable

2207:

My conversational style changes depending on who I'm talking to & what I'm talking about. The editor in question had a habit of asking borderline-irrelevant questions that never led to serious discussion of changes to the article. Having already answered, politely, at least one such question over

2121:

Most probably because Gravano was convicted before the newspapers went online, making researching such things far less easy than with more modern events. But by all means contribute additional detail to Sammy Gravano -- or any article at all for that matter. Your sole activity to date has been asking

2084:

However, in my work on the article since, I have gained a greater awareness of how the DI's campaigns fit together, and which ones have gained momentum and which ones were stillborn. This led me to consider that the this sentence was emphasising some of the less prominent and less effective campaigns

859:

and currently led by Dr. Kenn Gordon. On September 11, 2007, the Board of Directors of Religious Science International and the Core Council of the United Centers for Spiritual Living met in Los Angeles, CA, and voted to begin a process of integration into a single organization once again. There is no

333:

to see how much this "sacred and inviolable truth" has changed. There are dozens more examples, but a point-by-point rebuttal would be a waste of my time. I pity your poor students being subjected to such an ignorant and blinkered 'educator' as yourself, and can only assume that those by whom you are

309:

My point is not that ID is valid, but that evolution as we are required to present it in the classroom, amounts to junk science in itself. That dissenting opinions (by experts) and a body of contrary evidence may not be presented, and that this has resulted from a legal ruling, is a great example of

276:

I agree that an AfD will probably be eventually necessary for this article. However based on previous experience, I prefer to let an article settle as much as possible first, to minimise the inevitable the flood of attempts to establish notability, and resultant need to evaluate reliability/relevance

260:

Thanks for adding those citation tags; I didn't know about those. I have absolutely no vested interest in this article, and I'd almost like to see it deleted just so I didn't have to deal with it anymore. The article appears to have been created by the author herself, and two IPs have edited since

3148:

please add fact tags before removing material you aren't sure about. or are we to assume you are an expert on zoroastrian angelology? if so, my apologies. i look forward to your addition of well sourced, corrected information on the topic. otherwise, give other editors an opportunity to address your

2973:

one removing a whole paragraph because he didn't like one word (while refusing to respond to repeated requests for a suggestion for a more accurate replacement word). I think that "reject" is to faint a term for the thorough trashing of both the assumptions and conclusions they received at the hands

1990:

is over the top. The article's topic is notable on its face and the sources there are more than sufficient. All this tagging and deleting is not best practice for making better articles nor is it helping the regular contributors who maintain these articles. It would be best if you were to bring your

1032:

This one, if you are continuing on from a topic you have already raised here -- you click on the "" next to "Why did you eliminate my edits?" & add a new subsection at the bottom of it with "=== New-section-name ===". If it is a continuation of discussion of proposed changes then it should be on

918:

With regard to your "conflict of interest" concern, please be assured that I am only trying to reflect the latest evolutionary thinking of Religious Scientists. You may consider me an "expert" since I've been devoted to the teaching since the 1970's, have taken many courses on the subject, and have

773:

Although I'm a new editor on Knowledge and am making some mistakes, I am a long-time member of our local Religious Science Center, and am the webmaster of its website. I'm trying to add much needed references and to update the terminology and information on the Religious Science page of Knowledge.

820:

I really think I have added references (as requested) and made uncontroversial edits. If you don't agree, please specifically tell me how it can be improved...or which sections are unacceptable to you. This is getting very frustrating...there are only a limited number of hours per day to do this.

529:

You must be kidding. You had reverted three times within 30 hours, and I issued a warning to remind you not to do it again. That's not spurious. Then you accused me of "masking" my edit summaries, which does not assume good faith, so I issued the lowest-level possible warning about that. Again,

479:

two edits I made to this article were perfectly legitimate edits. The first one restored the good faith edits that had been made which removed bias by properly referring to the hypothesis as a theory (which needs no verification, as it is a self-evident fact... something labeled "hypothesis" is by

328:

Scseig: your proposed section is nothing more than a collection of ignorant creationist stereotypes. As such, it has no place in a wikipedia article. One example of its fallacious nature is your absurd claim that "The scientific establishment treats evolution as a sacred and inviolable truth". Read

139:

for scientific validity, even assuming that your experiment could be considered "empirical" given the very subjective nature of evaluating your own state of health. The problem is not whether it is "replicable" or not, but that what would be replicated lacks any scientific meaning. You clearly have

3513:

The article inaccurately says that the Establishment Clause prohibits the promotion of religion in the public schools. But that is not accurate. It is not the Establishment Clause which created that prohibition. It was the SCOTUS, and they did not do so on the basis of the First Amendment, they

3324:

Secondly I am confused as to why the rules and regulations that dictate what a church may and may not do in the realm of politics ( the state) "is not really a separation of church and state issue". Just because these mandates also apply to secular institutions does not make them irrelevant to the

2702:

But I think that this second round of edits is compliant. For example in one of my edits I was updating the list of books by a particular author to include his most recent publication by Templeton Press. Can you explain to me why is this spam? I'm new here so I'm entirely familiar with Knowledge's

2181:

I really don't want to get into any arguments with you; I just want to ensure that Knowledge is a place that is an environment that encourages collaboration. Many times someone's "unhelpful" question is a simple misunderstanding of what Knowledge is. You could have easily left out everything after

1671:

Inspectre is nowhere near as aggressive as 'Abuse truth', so is unlikely to warrant similar treatment. To be honest, I don't think he has any real expectation of changing the article, but most probably gains masochistic pleasure from being a martyr for his cause. I wonder if there's a "help, help,

1615:

I am new to editing so I do not know all of the rules, but you undid my revision because you said I removed sourced material. But the sourced material that I removed was extraneous and sometimes irrelevent. The section on diversity, apartheid, and indigenous rights was too long. I was trying to

3415:

After re-reading the quote, they may be discussing the Final Battle in general, rather than the death of the Jews as told in the Left Behind series. However, might those quotes be a better fit on the page discussing the Second Coming? If the section is about the Christian Right stance on Middle

2745:

on the authors of the books you added). That you do so in bulk means that your edits are likely to be reverted wholesale. The way to avoid getting this information deleted is to place a note in a new section at the bottom the article's talkpage giving the new information and requesting that it be

1714:? And then look at his blog that he's spam linking everywhere. I believe people who have a vested interest in an article (such as Expelled or Ben Stein) have an obligation to mention that, yes? And his petty vandalism of the Richard Dawkins article is funny, but not in the way he intended it. 423:

Please note that the reverts you have performed in rapid succession are detracting from the quality of the article. The last one, under the guise that a previous edit's summary was misleading, was particularly unfounded. There were two successive edits, the second of which legitimately restored

3206:

Why has so much of the bio been deleted? Dr. Andreasen is an internationally know researcher. She has written several books and hundreds of articles. She is a former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry and a National Medal of Science winner (2000). it takes more than a paragraph to

1919:

I've responded there and added sources and performed some minor copyediting to address your points. This is not the most effective method to strengthen our articles on ID, please consider working more collaboratively, less confrontationally. Instead of slapping templates and tags on articles and

978:

I agree with some of what you're saying...It would be nice to have a more esoteric discussion of Religious Science...but I think most people are not students in comparative religions...they just want to know how it would affect their lives. I agree that some of the original text gets a bit long

3318:

I understand that Mike Huckabee's positions align with many of the christian right's. However, his name goes unmentioned elsewhere in the article, and I do not believe that he advertises himself as a member. If I am wrong in my belief, then so be it, but he would still need an introduction that

3256:

I removed the Huckabee quote because there was no information relating him to the christian right, or introducing him as a member. Also the IRS information seems to me relevant to the issue of separation of church and state, with or without the Barton quote, as it discusses how churches can and

1620:

The removed material was generally neither extraneous nor irrelevant (most of it was quite explicitly documenting the Christian right's attitude to race & minorities). The length of the 'diversity, apartheid, and indigenous rights' section is due to repeated (generally pro-Christian right)

2263:

I agree that these compromises tend to come about because one "side" adds something and the other adds more to counterbalance. In my opinion, most "nice" things said about Hovind make the article POV since very few RSes view him in a favorable light. Placating is part of Knowledge though. :P

3453:

Hello, Hrafn, As promised, following is the revised Religious Science text, including the third party references you requested. However, I just did a search and found the original Religious Science entry missing. What happened? I did not edit some sections. I hope they are not lost.

625:

I do believe the article needs to be improved. But to tag it for deletion is extreme. I do believe a tag for references is indicated. Religious Science is an organization of over a thousand churches in the US and many more around the world. I noticed you deleted Divine Science a smaller

103:

My wife is a statistician, so I'm not uncomfortable with your model. However, empirical methods are just as much science. I do not propose you accept homeopathic potency on the basis of my testimony, but I'm confident that what I did is fully replicable by anyone interested in doing so.

2177:

If your conversational style has changed notably since then, I apologize. I am not claiming that his questions were helpful, and quite frankly that is irrelevant to the discussion. I am stating that you were being incivil: "Are you here to improve wikipedia...." and not assuming good

3257:

cannot participate in politics. I added this sourced information, in response to your comment that Barton was not qualified to comment on tax laws. I would like to know what issues you take with this information being added, or what suggestions you have to work it into the article.

664:, which simply means that "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Knowledge:Guide to deletion." If you want to improve the article then you are welcome to do so. I would suggest you read 2481:

was written. Imagine a newcomer to whom words like wikify, NN, NOR, SNOW and RS are gibberish. He writes a good article, and then someone who has no understanding of the subject deletes it. In most cases the newcomer won't come back and Knowledge will lose a good article.

299:

Dear Hrafn, This entry represents some of my core thinking over the past twenty years as a secondary science educator and a graduate student. Ultimately it has been quite well regarded. Do you understand what I am saying? Can you give me clear examples of extreme POV?

3077:

You're right, it was in the original (and your version merely made it more apparent). I have modified it to correct for this. However MOS shows a strong preference for prose rather than list structure whenever possible, so the original structure should probably stand.

3233:

Lgodlove's reversion was a complete and utter mess (no paragraphs, incorrect use of referencing), as well as being ludicrously hagiographical (Lgodlove admits to being her assistant). If you have good sources, then I suggest you rewrite the article from scratch.

596:

Thanks, Hrafn, your work in keeping a lid on these changes is greatly appreciated and accusations of edit warring are out of line. Glad to see that the proposals are now being justified and discussed on the talk page, as was appropriate at the outset. ..

360:

Oh, one last point -- the "dissenting opinions" are neither legitimate "contrary evidence" nor presented by legitimate "experts" -- but rather dishonest distortions and misrepresentations by a bunch of charlatans who rarely have any relevant expertise.

440:

I don't think reverting three repeated poorly explained/unexplained edits (edit summaries: "dab"/no explanation/"Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version", masked by " fixing error with piping") that lacked any apparent

753:

Actually Unity is New Thought and is the most influenced by christian teachings of the denominations. New Thought also finds Truth in other belief systems. Jesus is the great example not the exception. So yes it is both New Thought and Christian .

400:

prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

2359:

copyrighted". If you remember, I did provide a link at the end of the addition to his website, thereby "referring to this website". Why do you need lawyers. Your common sense should tell you that "it IS NOT COPYRIGHTED". And once permitted, it is

1787:

Gents in good faith I removed the Miller link again and here's why - the fact that Kevin Miller co-wrote Expelled is clearly documented on the Expelled website. I don't think there is a need to link to Kevin's personal blog or any other source.

2703:

spam definitions but it seems to me that endeavoring to make an author's list of publications as complete as possible should fit within the guidelines and policies. It doesn't link anywhere and it is information that is relevant to the article.

1881:

had "participated as a plaintiff to remove legal barriers to the teaching of intelligent design as science." I have been following this controversy for some time, and have seen no mention of a TMLC-as-plaintiff case, nor is it mentioned in its

1621:

demands to substantiate statements made in it. This has required introduction of a considerable amount of detailed information. If you want to get a feel for this, then I suggest you read the article talkpage discussion on the subject. Please

1152:

I'll take a look. Just to be sure I am clear on what's needed, however, what we are looking for is an authoritative source that supports the statement that it is a common position among YECs that the earth is no more than 5800 years old.

1037:. Also, if the conversation is just a continuation of previous discussion, it is acceptable to simply include it in the already-created section. What I am objecting to is the repeated creation of new, un-nested, sections on the same topic. 1816:; Odd nature was right, Wikpedia's goal is to present complete and comprehensive articles. Meaning the article should cover all notable campaigns, not just the most notable. I'm restoring the content, and please work together next time. 2320:

Any material on his website is NOT COPYRIGHTED. I quote from the website's home page: "All materials in this site are freely downloadable and may be freely copied by referring to the works of HARUN YAHYA". Please reply at the earliest.

3202:

I tried adding references to the bio for Nancy Andreasen yesterday and was going to finish today, but everything has disappeared! I used pub med and endnote - so I don't know why everything reverted back to the version you edited.

2776:

You are correct the core text is Lesson in Truth by Cady then the Bible. Unity is the most Christian sounding of the New Thought movement but it is New Thought. It has been influenced by a wide range of ideas and thought out side of

919:

many Religious Science friends who have come from various backgrounds. Our center has belonged to both UCSL (formerly UCRS) and RSI. I promise to try to be totally objective in my future re-write. If I'm not, please let me know.

2613:

No, it is you who is not listening: unsourced articles are never good articles. At best, they have to be re-written more or less completely to reflect sources, a task that is generally more time consuming than writing them from

1279:

That is one option. However, I'm not sure that most YECs accept Ussher as authoritative. I'm fairly sure that a lack of a solid consensus among them is what led to there being a range rather than a single number in the article.

1308:, had at one time a very nice essay describing dozens of religious estimates for the age of the earth and the universe. Unfortunately, this essay has been replaced by a very short version and the longer one is not available on 2905:

currently meet it. So either find some reliable independent secondary sources, or stop whining. And sign your bloody comments -- I'm sick to death of getting an edit-conflict because a bot has come along to sign it for you.

868:

and currently led by Rev. Lisa Marks. In addition, there are some smaller branches, as well as independent Religious Science churches. The teachings of the branches are generally similar and the organizations collaborate on

2706:

If this is still out of line, please let me know if there is any way to add this kind of information without getting deleted. Clearly there must be a way since there are already several books listed in the example I used.

914:

Thanks for your constructive critique...and your patience (since I'm a newbie to this). I will make the changes you suggest. May I send them to you first before publishing them? I can copy and paste them into this page.

168:

I'm afraid you're confused. Statistics are just one analytical tool. From a physics background, statistics are generally only relevant at the quantum level. I did not perform a statistical test nor purport to have done so.

3332:

He is aligned with the Christian Right both in terms of political policy and theology, his main support base is the Christian Right, and he has been reported as a rising leadership figure in the Christian Right. How is he

2439:

Please learn the difference between a employing common metaphor and invoking a wikipedia policy whose name comes from a different metaphor. What scares me is the vast number of articles that have been permitted through a

1415:

will allow you to draft a version that you can work on with full wiki markup, unhindered by policy or reverts. On top of that, you can solicit other editors for their opinions before establishing a final draft version.

1196: 789:

I reverted because you signed in mainspace -- see the template I left on your talkpage. The two references you gave weren't particularly useful (one of the two was for the mere existence of a book) or reliable -- see

2843:, became a FRS for similar reasons. Are you suggesting that the RS has no internal politics? In any case and as I have stated before, the requirements for election to the RS (which are about contribution to science) 940:

means that you should not edit articles on organisations you're involved in (which is clearly the case with yourself and Religious Science). From wikipedia's viewpoint you are not an "expert" but rather a potential

568:

masking"), but simply pointing out that this de-emphasised the (not particularly informative) prior explanation of "Reverted 1 edit by Hrafn; Restoring the most recent least POV version". Now would be so kind as to

3325:

issue at hand. would it help if that were clarified within the article? Also regarding the Barton quote, you have said previously that he is not qualified to comment on tax law. So how then is it a necessary piece?

2041:

I'd like to continue this discussion by email. Please use the "E-mail this user" link at my user page and let's talk this out; there's some very good reasons for keeping these articles that may not be so apparent.

2736:

Tfpeditor: every one of your edits has involved Templeton Press. You clearly have some sort of relationship with them (either you are an employee, you work for the their PR firm or similar). Therefore you have a

1729:

I've come across him myself. First step is to template him (with {{subst:uw-spam1}}, {{subst:uw-spam2}}, {{subst:uw-spam3}}, or {{subst:uw-spam4}} ). A potential second step would be to have his blog listed on

3573: 877:

which can be found in most large book stores and includes inspirational articles and daily readings/affirmation by ministers, celebrities, and other metaphysical teachers; as well as a list of member Centers.

2335:

copyrighted. Whether the permission is sufficient to cover its usage by Knowledge is something to leave up to the lawyers. In any case to lift a large chunk of his biography straight off his own website is

1625:

make controversial edits (which almost always includes the removal of long-standing sourced material, particularly if the edit summary does not clearly explain the reason for the removal) without first

78:

As someone with a background in statistics, and some knowledge of the scientific method, I find it hard to credit your claims that your "personal experiment" (i.e. an 'experiment' with a sample size of

2017:, so I'm tagging it for notability." The campaign appears not to have gained "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so its notability is legitimately in doubt. 1173:

For the record, I agree that Islamic Voice is not the best reference for this particular article, but it is a recognized source for Knowledge for both Islamic and non Islamic issues. Take a look at

979:

winded (not MINE, of course), but your strike-outs go way too far. When I have time, I will provide a counter proposal, and address your concerns about some of the references. Gotta go. Thanks, --

2566:

And how many people will read the crap article and either (i) be misinformed or (ii) form a lower opinion of wikipedia in the mean time? I do not agree with your permissive attitude towards them.

1653: 1098:

And I've commented there, where the tag goes is the least of the article's problems and hope that you can both relax and see some improvements made rather than escalating a minor disagreement. ..

1857:, where I gave detailed reasoning for these changes. I would very much appreciate if you would not revert my edits without at least addressing my concerns there. In summary my concerns are: 2013:

No it is not! As I stated on that article's talk: "The references in it seem to be exclusively to coverage of underlying issues and the DI playing it up. If not, it probably does not meet

2699:

I'm sorry that I didn't understand the no external linking policy at first. When you pointed that I out, I realized that my first round of edits weren't compliant with Knowledge's rules.

2212:, I was indicating that my tolerance for such antics was wearing thin. He eventually completely wore out his welcome, and the threads for his questions were mostly moved to his talkpage. 1850: 2185:

This isn't a general attack on you as a contributor to Knowledge. I find many of your edits highly useful and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. I really don't mean any harm.

721:

Can Religious Science, Divine Science and Unity be included in the New Thought movement article since they fall under the umbrella of New Thought? They can be expanded in those section.

2122:

not particularly helpful questions on talkpages. Are you here to improve wikipedia or just to tie up other editors answering your questions? HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2089:

By all means argue with me if you think I'm wrong, but don't treat me as some newbie, either to wikipedia or to this article, who should not be making major changes without permission.

736:

They can (hence the redirect/merge aspect of the template). Or they can have their own articles if "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent" of them can be found.

2667:

invoking, and have had very little need to look closely at previously), and was under a misapprehension as to the metaphor it was based upon. That does not however alter the fact that

3022: 2598:

a possibly good article and a possibly good contributor. I encountered a few COI users, and yes, most of them are here only to promote their company. But i still assume good faith.

1330:

doesn't provide any reference for 5500 BCE Nor does it offer any figure more recent than Ussher -- so perhaps we should take Ussher as the lower bound unless & until we find a

2835:

Quite probably because his father-in-law was a Nobel Prize winner and had only recently stepped down as president of the Royal Society. It is likely that Keynes' brother-in-law,

2075:

is what the 'Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns' article looked like when I started editing it back in September. It was a lead plus a single, unstructured section.

1684:

may give some background (Denyse O'Leary, if you haven't encountered her already, is a prolific, if ignorant and much-derided, Canadian professional pro-ID blogger). ERV in turn

3251: 3390:(with ~~~~). Failure to do so leads to edit conflicts as a bot comes along to sign them for you. I will summarily revert any further unsigned comments you make on this page! 3643: 1647: 3294:

The IRS information applies to both religious and secular non-profits, so is not really a separation of church and state issue. Further, lacking the Barton quote, there is

689:

I am confused, the article on Unity Church is only sourced with material provided by there websites not third party sources. Can you clear that up for me? Explain please.

61:

As someone who did a personal experiment to confirm the effect of homeopathy, I find it hard to credit your claims that only blind faith justifies belief in homeopathy. —

3603: 3514:

did so on the basis of a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which (they held) selectively "incorporates" portions of the Bill of Rights as applying to the States.

1962:, because nobody else could be bothered posting there -- even when they had a dispute. So I would suggest that I don't really need a lesson in working collaboratively. 83:, and no scientific protocols) proves anything at all, other than the power of the very "blind faith" you are disclaiming. Thank you for demonstrating my point for me. 3035: 2637:. You very boldly said that that article "has only a snowball's chance in hell of surviving", without bothering even to google the subject, and you were very wrong. -- 212:

surprised if you could find any mainstream medical research on the topic that did not make use of statistical testing. Likewise your purported "physics background" is

3594:

talk page, making it appear that several people who have never commented on my Talk page at all have left comments there. Will you please revert yourself? Thanks.

1758:

as an inline reference. It saves misunderstandings that he might be a notable Miller with a link, and it was a useful source for links to reviews of the film. The

966: 306:

Do you believe that evolutionary theory, absent a theistic tradition, would be presented so forcefully to young minds or effectively placed beyond falsifiability?

704:

I've just templated them. Being unsourced is generally considered worse, and is more obvious to an editor skimming in passing, than only non-third party sources.

140:

no idea as to what is involved in setting up a genuine scientific experiment, so I would suggest that you stop digging yourself into a deeper hole on this issue.

1219:

The Ussher chronology lists the Creation at 4004 BC, making the Earth 6012 years old, not 5,800. There are a number of calculations, my point being that we need

3567: 3218: 2064:

I would like to take issue with your initial comments about implying that I was impeding "Wikpedia's goal is to present complete and comprehensive articles":

1955: 3276: 313:

I will gladly consider incorporating any suggestions you may have for me. I am glad to modify my entry to adhere to the standards of Knowledge. Sincerely,

3312: 2813:

If you want something deleted then get it deleted properly. Chances are you'll be laughed at for being an idiot or a troll (I haven't decided which yet)

1082: 3672: 909: 3461: 3070: 3062: 2307: 1711: 1665: 1055: 1018: 980: 923: 822: 775: 254: 2677:

making a massive deal about an off-the-cuff comment is completely ridiculous and boerdering upon harrassment. I am therefore closing this thread down.

2078:

I was the one who restructured it, and I have been the one who has contributed the bulk of its growth since (to over 2.5 times its size at that time).

3448: 3214: 2385: 3507: 3663:(In fact, since among the comments you deleted were some that were only a few hours old, it would not have been appropriate even to archive them.) 3469: 2717: 1861: 175: 110: 67: 2004: 2134:, as you often cite other guidelines and policies to other contributors. Please keep this policy in mind as you converse with other Wikipedians. 1843: 1825: 1813: 1797: 1555: 1520: 1474: 1439: 815: 774:

If you disagree with some of the edits, I welcome a discussion. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll go ahead and re-instate my changes. Thanks--

2312:

Hi! You left a message on my talk page on 29th Jan, 2008. I have written this reply regarding your objection to my contributions to the article

216:

if you are unaware of the relevance of statistics to a wide range of physics fields beyond those dealing with things at the quantum level. Read

3477: 1106: 3158: 2343: 3417: 3264: 3058: 2995:

of a conspiracy. I suppose that's the mindset behind "Expelled": the dominance of evolution is science is "proof" of a conspiracy. There's

1992: 1807: 1174: 2741:

on books that they publish and should not be editing to add information on books that they publish to articles (including a number that are

1745: 303:

I refuse to be called an evolutionist or a proponent of intelligent design. Instead, I claim to be a voice for stark intellectual honesty.

3681:

My understanding is that it is totally appropriate and even reasonable to userfy or delete offtopic discussions or SOAPbox rants. Thanks.--

3649: 3529: 2917: 2862: 1889:

has been actively involved in the legal defense of ID. Again I can find no evidence (beyond them lending moral support) for this statement.

851:, or RSI. RSI cites the cause of the split as "differences in approach to corporate structure and church administration." UCSL is based in 627: 334:"well regarded" have had little exposure to genuine science. A "theistic tradition" has no place in public school science classes, per the 2051: 2028: 1973: 1933: 1906: 860:

specific timetable for this to occur, however, there will be ongoing activity to bring various aspects of the two organizations together.

605: 2100: 1951: 1921: 783: 747: 715: 170: 105: 62: 3189: 1048: 1011: 960: 809: 3245: 1774: 649: 2765: 2157:

helpful to the article? This isn't incivility so much as an attempt to cut short a line of questioning that fell outside the remit of

449:

24 hours counts as "edit warring". Please don't blame me for your own & your compatriots' inability to articulate your rationale.

2223: 2194: 2172: 1592: 1563: 1549: 1528: 1514: 1482: 1468: 539: 520: 460: 288: 2985: 2646: 2577: 2557: 1723: 1438:

You have vandalized a perfectly valid and referenced, and not irrelevant, addition to these pages. Please try not to do this again.

3726: 3690: 3637: 3552: 3442: 3381:

on tax law, so any statement that made it appear that he was an expert (as opposed to merely a leader of the CR), is impermissible.

3089: 2061:

I don't see any point in an email conversation on this. However, if you insist that one is necessary, you are welcome to email me.

1186: 372: 353: 3401: 2539: 2515: 2301: 1345: 945:. If you want to see material/sources considered for the article, then you should place them on the article talkpage and allow an 931: 683: 3030: 1398: 1291: 1266: 1248: 1234: 1162: 1147: 1092: 1017:

Hrafn: I don't know which section you mean, or how to get there. Do you mean on the Religious Science Talk page or this one? --

830: 768: 239: 180: 151: 115: 94: 3040:

Undid revision 197850960 by Kmm210 (talk)identification of "premarital sex, or homosexuality" as "promiscuity"is WP:OR, WP:POV)

1699: 1685: 1425: 3702: 3653: 3617: 3478: 3108:. since another editor has kindly added citations, clearly you were in error in removing the material. have a scrumptious day. 1656:

kind of reaction to an editor (but I don't spend much time on AN/I). Inspectre could do with some similar attention perhaps.

2068: 1854: 322: 3226: 3104:!) that the information is "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". that constitutes little more than 2353:

I suggest you learn to understand. After reading such a clear cut statement of permission from the website you still say "It

310:

the other side of this issue. In both cases, science is politicized--and I really believe that we are all the worse for it.

2498:

properties of snowballs) -- so I have no idea as to why you're still wittering on about SNOW. Wholly unsourced articles are

2494:

to do with the metaphor, "a snowball's chance in hell", which I employed (other than that they happen to both be based upon

2434: 1831: 1457:

is not "vandalism". Please familiarise yourself betrer with wikip[edia policy before you start throwing around accusations.

763: 730: 698: 3284: 3026: 2878: 2820: 1681: 904: 3517:

This inaccuracy in the article needs to be fixed, so please do not seek to block the discussion on the article Talk page.

2471: 3013: 2778: 1987: 1321: 861: 840: 1641: 1213: 1126: 2402:

Employing a metaphor DOES NOT mean that one is invoking a wikipedia policy that happens to be named for this metaphor.

2381: 2251: 973: 844: 755: 722: 690: 270: 72: 1766:

and balancing it is rather more complex so I've not tried. Yet. Anyway, I won't object if the Millerlink is removed..

1365: 3377:

Barton was important because he gave the issue relevance to the Christian Right (but not to Separation). He is not a

2293: 635: 294: 1063: 1026: 988: 489: 434: 3587: 3222: 3008: 2836: 2278: 864:, or GRSM, was founded by former RSI ministers who envisioned an expanded definition of ministry. GRSM is based in 3425: 3117: 2283:

Richard Sternberg is not an ID advocate. I trust his personal webpage more than other sources. Choose your truth.

2273: 1447: 794:. If you are "a long-time member of our local Religious Science Center" then you have a conflict of interest. See 338:. By describing the painstaking and robust research of hundreds of thousands of researchers as "junk science" you 2959: 2786: 2729: 2725: 1677: 848: 330: 3431:

It's badly written, obscuring the context. I've attempted to rewrite it to make the relevance somewhat clearer.

413:. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a 3563: 3548: 2886: 2828: 2394: 2081:

I was the one in fact who moved the sentence now under contention out of that single section and into the lead.

1705: 501:

templates. I was not edit warring and expecting a meaningful explanation of potentially controversial edits is

2143: 2548:

Crap articles will be discovered and deleted one day; good deleted articles are likely to be gone forever. --

1995:

instead of tagging and templating articles willy-nilly. I'd rather we work together than against each other.

1112: 1068: 393: 3139:, I would point out that I didn't originally delete it, but merely reverted its restoration in violation of 2329:. All rights reserved. Our materials may be copied, printed and distributed, by referring to this site." It 3272: 3197: 3066: 1610: 418: 56: 1630:

them on the article's talkpage. Such undiscussed controversial edits are likely to be routinely reverted.

873:

The source that you gave, www.scienceofmind.com, did not verify this statement that you attributed to it:

3721: 3632: 3437: 3396: 3307: 3240: 3184: 3084: 2980: 2930: 2912: 2857: 2760: 2572: 2534: 2510: 2466: 2218: 2167: 2095: 2023: 1968: 1901: 1871: 1740: 1694: 1636: 1587: 1544: 1509: 1463: 1393: 1351: 1340: 1286: 1229: 1142: 1043: 1006: 955: 899: 804: 742: 710: 678: 588: 515: 455: 402: 397: 367: 348: 283: 234: 146: 89: 1920:

sections then deleting the content when sources do not appear to suit, try adding issues to the list at

2974:

of Musgrave et al, but see no point in arguing about it, as I'm intending a major rewrite in any case.

471:

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you

38: 3487:

If you want to argue the toss, then become a constitutional lawyer and take your arguments to SCOTUS.

2935: 2893:

You asked the question. I answered it. If you don't like the answer then don't ask. Regardless, it is

1074: 3559: 3544: 1793: 1719: 1077:

concerning your actions in our ongoing dispute regarding the proper placement of the clean-up tag on

620: 408: 2924:

jump to suspect that these connections played a larger part in his election than his contributions.

1762:

review he didn't much like was useful for the release date, the review he did like has been covered

1117:

What sort of reference are you looking for re the YEC assertion that the earth is 5800 years old? --

3538: 2882: 2824: 1763: 1731: 253: 1519:

There are no reliable sources for creationism, so it figures there would be an article on it! LoL

3620:. If you don't want it own your own talkpage, you are welcome to delete it, as it has absolutely 2782: 2047: 2000: 1929: 1839: 1821: 1133: 1000:

sections of your original top-level section. It helps to keep the conversation coherent. Thanks.

865: 277:

of new sources, in the middle of the AfD. So I tag & whittle away the dross as a first step.

3698: 342:

and do grave disservice to both science and religion. It is rather your claims that are "junk".

2377: 2247: 1878: 1239:

Since we have an authoritative reference for 6012 years old, why not change the 5800 to 6012?--

1034: 759: 726: 694: 672:

first, so that you can concentrate your improvements in areas that will establish notability.

3465: 3410: 3154: 3136: 3113: 3105: 2297: 1886: 1078: 1059: 1022: 984: 927: 826: 779: 378: 221: 128:

Then ask your wife her opinion on any statistical test with a sample size of one -- they are

3319:

clarifies him as an active participant in the movement, or as the candidate supported by it.

1371:

If you want to "work on it" then do so in a sandbox, until it is referenced -- mainspace is

3260: 3210: 3054: 2874: 2816: 2713: 2369: 2289: 2233: 1789: 1771: 1715: 1103: 646: 602: 576: 335: 3543:

Thanks Hrafn! How cool is that! This is great, I never even noticed that thing before.

883:", was basically superfluous (and did not give any useful information, like ISBN number). 8: 3004: 2940: 2721: 2256: 2105: 1433: 856: 852: 839:

In 1953 the Church of Religious Science split into two organizations, known today as the

414: 217: 3043:

You undid the section back to say the same thing: "*Opposition to promiscuity (through

2590:

You're not following: There is damage in having a few people misinformed, but there is

2524:

to write about themselves seldom show any interest in writing about topics they aren't

2269: 2190: 2139: 2043: 1996: 1925: 1835: 1817: 1559: 1524: 1478: 1443: 535: 485: 430: 389: 266: 2149:

This is a four-month old comment to an editor who has (even now) made a total of only

1954:(either to add tasks or remove old ones) in the past year. Likewise the first half of 3657: 3510:

Talk page, about an inaccuracy in the article, and you accused me of "pure WP:SOAP."

3172: 3167:

I was not newly-removing material, I was reverting restoration of unsourced material

3140: 2955: 2868:

Do you have a citation for that? Or are you just spewing crap? Fellows are elected

2791: 2691: 2642: 2553: 2430: 2373: 2243: 2239: 2131: 2117:

Hello. I noticed that you seem rather rude in a few of your comments. As an example:

1404: 1201: 994:

Wonbillions: could you please place further comments related to the same subject as

3668: 3599: 3525: 3506:

You used a {{hat|reason=]}} template to hide the discussion which I started on the

3421: 3268: 3150: 3109: 3095: 2209: 2127: 1851:

Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Notable campaigns in the lead

1569: 1534: 1309: 506: 339: 318: 3131:. and what could be sourced is far smaller than the original section. As for your 2182:"Your sole activity...." and your message would still be the same, sans incivilty. 1312:. I wrote to B. A. Robinson to ask about the longer essay but received no reply.-- 3686: 3288: 2112: 1767: 1578: 1327: 1317: 1302: 1254: 1099: 642: 641:

JGG59. as discussed on your talk page, reliable secondary sources are needed. ..

631: 598: 584: 47: 17: 2425:

It scares me to think how many good articles received that kind of treatment. --

1306: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3712: 3613: 3000: 2898: 2485: 2478: 2449: 2419: 2158: 2014: 1499:

stating that the research may impinge upon creationism, so the claim is purely

1361: 1356:

Reverting already! Wow you're fast! Give us a chance, I'm still working on it.

1262: 1244: 1209: 1182: 1158: 1122: 665: 3143:: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." 3021:

Please discuss on the talk page before pulling the trigger on another revert.

2991:

Wow - he seems to think that the fact that Knowledge is the top google hit is

2316:. Mr. Adnan Oktar has given free permission to copy material from his website 2284: 3132: 2970: 2894: 2848: 2771: 2751: 2738: 2525: 2265: 2186: 2135: 1673: 1661: 1421: 937: 887: 795: 669: 531: 481: 472: 426: 262: 228:

on this topic, and I have no wish whatsoever to discuss it further with you.

3378: 3124: 3101: 3044: 2951: 2902: 2840: 2638: 2549: 2426: 1574: 1500: 1496: 1454: 1412: 1331: 882:"The Science of Mind" latest edition 2007, Wilder Publications</ref: --> 791: 2346:. Please don't do this this kind of thing again. 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1223:

for both the highest and lowest number that has any authority/acceptance.

3664: 3595: 3521: 3128: 3015: 2946: 2445: 2344:

WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

2313: 2257: 1378: 442: 314: 3374:(Right, Left & Center; Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc, etc). 2325:

I suggest you learn to read. The site states "Harun Yahya International

1377:

the place for unreferenced statements, let alone unreferenced sections.

384: 3717: 3682: 3628: 3433: 3392: 3303: 3236: 3180: 3080: 2976: 2926: 2908: 2853: 2798: 2756: 2568: 2530: 2506: 2462: 2214: 2163: 2091: 2019: 1964: 1897: 1736: 1690: 1632: 1583: 1540: 1505: 1459: 1389: 1336: 1313: 1282: 1225: 1138: 1039: 1002: 951: 895: 800: 738: 706: 674: 580: 511: 451: 363: 344: 279: 230: 204:, I am not confused, you are talking through your hat -- statistics is 142: 85: 3047:, premarital sex, or homosexuality.)" < this is the current post. 2663:

Sorry, I did not look closely enough at that policy (it is one that I

3416:

East politics, do we need a quote about the inerrancy of the Bible?

2869: 1357: 1258: 1240: 1205: 1178: 1154: 1118: 2945:

Just wanted to let you know of my attempt to correct something with

1657: 1417: 1734:

and/or get him blocked, if he is/becomes sufficiently persistent.

208:

for evaluating the efficacy of medical treatments, and I would be

3474:

DRAFT RELIGIOUS SCIENCE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY (except last sections)

2803:

Ask yourself this question -- how did someone get to be elected

1403:

And because I love stalking talk pages, I'll add my two cents.

3558:

oops-guess I don't need the == with it either. Thanks again.

2634: 2754:

to evaluate the information and decide if it is worth adding.

1874:

contained numerous exaggerations and two apparent falsehoods:

467: 3715:

against SCOTUS's interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

3298:, it is thus irrelevant to an article on the Christian right. 3100:

but by the same measure, you are not free to blithely claim (

2520:

I would further point out that editors who come to wikipedia

2342:

and, as I stated in my edit summary, a probable violation of

3590:

edit, you inserted a big chuck of an article talk page onto

2317: 1680:). Given that Inspectre is almost certainly Cameron Wybrow, 3652:, you deleted (rather than archived) a discussion from the 3368:

IT HAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

2851:(which are about reliable independent secondary sources). 1538:

is a rather obvious counterexample to that idiotic claim.

1136:

than "a monthly Islamic magazine published in Bangalore."

556:

in 30 hours. That is not edit warring. I ceased after you

2804: 2456:

notability or purported facts, but on their defenders to

1577:

on the subject of Creationism. now stop trying to make a

2999:

way there could be an alternative explanation, huh? :)

558:

actually bothered to articulate a meaningful explanation

3252:

Christian Right: separation of church and state section

855:

and currently led by Rev. Kathy Hearn. RSI is based in

3457:

Please let me know if any further changes are needed.

3354:. It could be repealed, as long as the repeal covered 2504:

good articles. Nor are ones written by their subject.

1175:

Google search for "Islamic Voice" in English Knowledge

3644:

Please do not delete material from article Talk pages

3366:

to do with separation of church and state. Likewise,

2153:

mainspace edits. Are you claiming that his questions

1956:

Talk:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

1648:

Never seen this before, you might find it interesting

2710:Thanks - sorry if I'm stepping on toes. -tfpeditor 1754:

Hi, hope no-one's upset that I restored the link to

3149:concerns by fact tagging first. thank you ever so. 2488:comes from the metaphor of "snowballing" which has 505:assuming bad faith. Your conduct here borders upon 224:and leave me alone. You have proved yourself to be 3036:Christian Right; Sexuality and Reproduction change 1676:as his anarcho-syndicalist peasant character from 1411:to justify the information, not the remover. And 1054:Hrafn....OK, I get it now. Thanks for the tips.-- 2969:editors tinkering with the article, just with a 2422:at least try googling for the article's name.}} 1862:Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns 1387:have an 'I'll get around to it soon' exception. 445:or substantiation, to make the same changes, in 2839:, another apparently otherwise-undistinguished 2669:I did not, and did not give any impression that 2366:to take xerox copies from the referred sites. 1950:FM: I'm the only person who has contributed to 1253:It looks like 5800 is by Jewish reckoning. See 1952:Knowledge:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Tasks 1922:Knowledge:WikiProject_intelligent_design#Tasks 3287:and you will see that he is very much in the 2810:A guideline is a guideline not set in stone. 1993:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_intelligent_design 1672:I'm being repressed" template (with a pic of 3616:on the Establishment Clause has no place on 3296:nothing to connect it to the Christian right 2633:about "a snowball's chance in hell" and not 1204:, does the assertion even need a citation?-- 2671:I was invoking it. That you are making are 2285:http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm 1868:were "notable". This is clearly misleading. 1855:Talk:Intelligent design movement#Legal arms 495:Please desist in spamming my talkpage with 3492:The following discussion has been closed. 3360:without violating the Establishment Clause 2407:The following discussion has been closed. 2308:I have not copied any copyrighted material 475:while interacting with other editors. The 392:according to the reverts you have made on 3449:As promised....new Religious Science Text 3135:-violating accusation that I'm violating 2238:I finally replied to your comment on the 1581:and go do something useful for a change. 571:stop making a mountain out of a molehill! 388:You currently appear to be engaged in an 3660:WP:Talk. Please don't do that anymore. 552:No I am not "kidding". I reverted three 3460:Thanks again for your valuable help. -- 2847:automatically meet the requirements of 2452:. The onus is not on the challenger to 1710:Would you look at the edit history for 1195:Back to the point, how does this look? 949:editor to evaluate them for inclusion. 14: 3703:Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 3618:Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 3479:Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed 1132:Something a bit more authoritative on 1073:For your information, I've filed this 560:. Mentioning the "masking" was not an 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2746:added. This will allow an editor who 1808:Discovery Institute Campaigns article 835:This piece was completely unsourced: 660:tagged for deletion, it's tagged for 3285:Political positions of Mike Huckabee 1924:and working to find sources needed. 881:The other "reference", "<ref: --> 417:among editors. If necessary, pursue 25: 3350:, religious and secular may not do 2418:Please, next time you try to enact 892:so should not be editing it AT ALL! 862:Global Religious Science Ministries 841:United Centers for Spiritual Living 564:(if it had been I would have said " 23: 3508:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed| 3340:The rules don't dictate just what 3175:. Please stop making demands that 845:United Church of Religious Science 554:poorly explained/unexplained edits 24: 3738: 3654:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 3051:explination were contridictory) 3370:, it is a legal issue affecting 3352:while still remaining tax-exempt 2837:Richard Adrian, 2nd Baron Adrian 1864:stated that campaigns that have 967:This should satisfy requirements 466: 383: 29: 1986:Sorry to bother you again, but 1678:Monty Python and the Holy Grail 849:Religious Science International 769:Why did you eliminate my edits? 331:history of evolutionary thought 3626:value to wikipedia generally. 2130:page. I'm sure you know about 13: 1: 3358:(both religious and secular) 2274:15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 2252:19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2224:10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2195:09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2173:08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2144:08:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2101:10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2052:06:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2029:06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 2005:06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1974:10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1934:06:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1907:06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1860:The statement in the lead of 1844:05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1826:05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1798:21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1775:18:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1746:05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1724:04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1700:22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 1666:21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 1642:21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 1593:19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1564:10:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1554:Supporting, not against! Lol 1550:14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1529:14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1515:10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1483:09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1469:09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1448:09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 1426:18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1399:16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1366:16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1346:19:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1322:19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1292:04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1267:03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1249:03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1235:04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 1214:22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1187:22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1163:22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1148:15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1127:15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1107:19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 1093:17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 1064:19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1049:05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1027:04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 1012:02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 989:00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 961:16:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 932:16:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 905:09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 831:08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 810:06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 784:06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 764:16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 748:14:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 731:13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 716:02:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 699:19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 684:03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 650:18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 636:18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 606:08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 540:04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 521:04:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 490:04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 461:04:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 435:03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 394:Creation according to Genesis 373:13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 354:04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 323:22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 3344:may or may not do, but what 3337:part of the Christian Right? 3123:Actually, I'm free to claim 289:03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 271:17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 240:10:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 181:10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 152:10:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 137:necessary but not sufficient 116:10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 95:10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 73:08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 7: 1872:Intelligent design movement 10: 3743: 3727:21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3691:15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3673:11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3638:21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3604:10:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3568:15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3553:15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3530:09:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3470:22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3443:16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3426:16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3402:15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3313:05:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3277:03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 3246:18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 3227:17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 3190:17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 3159:17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 3118:17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 3090:15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 3071:14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 3031:14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 3009:21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2986:03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 2960:03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 2897:that applies, and neither 2085:over more successful ones. 1407:says the burden is on the 135:. "Empirical methods" are 3388:PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS 2936:17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2918:17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2887:16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2863:16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2829:16:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2787:16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2766:02:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 2730:18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2647:19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2578:16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2558:16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2540:17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2516:16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2472:16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2435:16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2386:20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 2318:http://www.harunyahya.com 2302:17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 1686:punctures his pretensions 1301:One of our references to 591:) 05:02, 15 February 2008 295:Politicization of Science 3699:WP:TALK#Others' comments 3495:Please do not modify it. 3177:have no basis in policy. 2410:Please do not modify it. 2279:Subjectivity in articles 1334:for a more recent date. 910:Thanks...I'll work on it 843:, or UCSL (formerly the 3578:people's comments onto 3127:on anything that isn't 2965:I have no problem with 1473:There was no OR there! 1134:Young Earth Creationism 866:Silver Spring, Maryland 816:Please be more specific 2395:Snow - Zomet Institute 2339:grossly unencyclopedic 2240:David Barton talk page 2124: 1879:Thomas More Law Center 1706:When you have a moment 1035:Talk:Religious Science 879: 871: 2119: 1887:Alliance Defense Fund 1200:Actually, looking at 1113:Appropriate Reference 1079:Old Earth creationism 1069:Tag placement dispute 875: 837: 222:Statistical mechanics 42:of past discussions. 3560:Professor marginalia 3545:Professor marginalia 3198:Andreasen references 2363:grossly encyclopedic 1960:me talking to myself 1866:sunk without a trace 1611:Christian Right page 888:conflict of interest 340:"bear false witness" 336:Establishment clause 57:Faith vs. experiment 3574:Please do not copy 3362:. Therefore it has 3169:in direct violation 1352:Çreation in Genesis 857:Spokane, Washington 853:Burbank, California 405:. If you continue, 329:the article on the 226:completely ignorant 218:Statistical physics 2491:nothing whatsoever 2444:interpretation of 886:Further, you have 419:dispute resolution 3656:Talk page, which 3582:Talk page, Hrafn. 3536: 3535: 3279: 3263:comment added by 3229: 3213:comment added by 3073: 3057:comment added by 2889: 2877:comment added by 2831: 2819:comment added by 2732: 2716:comment added by 2689: 2688: 2594:damage in losing 2442:completely shoddy 2388: 2372:comment added by 2304: 2292:comment added by 2132:Knowledge:Civilty 1732:WP:Spam blacklist 1202:Ussher chronology 1090: 890:on this article, 621:Religious Science 593: 579:comment added by 473:assume good faith 403:three-revert rule 398:three-revert rule 133:complete bollocks 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3734: 3725: 3636: 3539:Plus edit button 3497: 3484: 3483: 3441: 3400: 3311: 3258: 3244: 3208: 3188: 3088: 3052: 3014:your reverts on 2984: 2934: 2916: 2872: 2861: 2814: 2764: 2711: 2576: 2538: 2514: 2470: 2412: 2399: 2398: 2367: 2287: 2222: 2210:Talk:Creationism 2171: 2128:Talk:Kent Hovind 2099: 2027: 1972: 1905: 1744: 1698: 1652:I've never seen 1640: 1591: 1570:The Creationists 1548: 1535:The Creationists 1513: 1467: 1397: 1344: 1310:internet archive 1290: 1233: 1146: 1089: 1047: 1010: 959: 903: 847:, or UCRS), and 808: 746: 714: 682: 592: 573: 519: 470: 459: 396:. Note that the 387: 371: 352: 287: 255:Michele Sinclair 238: 150: 93: 33: 32: 26: 3742: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3724: 3716: 3646: 3635: 3627: 3584: 3541: 3493: 3482: 3451: 3440: 3432: 3413: 3399: 3391: 3372:all non-profits 3356:all non-profits 3347:ALL NON-PROFITS 3310: 3302: 3289:Christian right 3254: 3243: 3235: 3207:describe her. 3200: 3187: 3179: 3098: 3087: 3079: 3038: 3019: 2983: 2975: 2943: 2933: 2925: 2915: 2907: 2860: 2852: 2801: 2794: 2774: 2763: 2755: 2694: 2639:Amir E. Aharoni 2575: 2567: 2550:Amir E. Aharoni 2537: 2529: 2513: 2505: 2469: 2461: 2427:Amir E. Aharoni 2408: 2397: 2310: 2281: 2261: 2236: 2221: 2213: 2170: 2162: 2115: 2108: 2098: 2090: 2026: 2018: 1971: 1963: 1904: 1896: 1849:I refer you to 1810: 1790:Angry Christian 1743: 1735: 1716:Angry Christian 1708: 1697: 1689: 1650: 1639: 1631: 1613: 1590: 1582: 1547: 1539: 1512: 1504: 1466: 1458: 1436: 1396: 1388: 1354: 1343: 1335: 1328:Dating Creation 1303:Dating Creation 1289: 1281: 1255:Dating Creation 1232: 1224: 1145: 1137: 1115: 1071: 1046: 1038: 1009: 1001: 976: 969: 958: 950: 912: 902: 894: 818: 807: 799: 771: 745: 737: 713: 705: 681: 673: 623: 574: 518: 510: 458: 450: 381: 370: 362: 351: 343: 297: 286: 278: 258: 237: 229: 149: 141: 92: 84: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:User talk:Hrafn 12: 11: 5: 3740: 3730: 3729: 3720: 3711:the place for 3694: 3693: 3677: 3645: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3631: 3610:No I will not. 3583: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3533: 3499: 3498: 3489: 3488: 3481: 3476: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3436: 3412: 3409: 3407: 3405: 3404: 3395: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3375: 3338: 3327: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3306: 3300: 3299: 3292: 3253: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3239: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3183: 3162: 3161: 3145: 3144: 3137:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3106:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3097: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3083: 3037: 3034: 3018: 3012: 2989: 2988: 2979: 2942: 2939: 2929: 2921: 2920: 2911: 2899:Richard Keynes 2879:86.128.217.153 2866: 2865: 2856: 2821:86.128.217.153 2800: 2797: 2793: 2790: 2773: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2759: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2571: 2561: 2560: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2533: 2518: 2509: 2465: 2414: 2413: 2404: 2403: 2396: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2348: 2347: 2309: 2306: 2280: 2277: 2260: 2255: 2235: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2217: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2183: 2179: 2166: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2094: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2022: 2008: 2007: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1967: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1900: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1883: 1869: 1832:this reversion 1814:this reversion 1809: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1749: 1748: 1739: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1693: 1682:this blog-post 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1635: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1586: 1543: 1508: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1462: 1435: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1392: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1339: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1285: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1251: 1228: 1194: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1141: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1070: 1067: 1052: 1051: 1042: 1015: 1014: 1005: 975: 972: 968: 965: 964: 963: 954: 911: 908: 898: 817: 814: 813: 812: 803: 770: 767: 751: 750: 741: 719: 718: 709: 687: 686: 677: 653: 652: 622: 619: 617: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 545: 544: 543: 542: 524: 523: 514: 464: 463: 454: 380: 377: 376: 375: 366: 357: 356: 347: 296: 293: 292: 291: 282: 257: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 233: 214:fatally flawed 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 159: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 145: 121: 120: 119: 118: 98: 97: 88: 58: 55: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3739: 3728: 3723: 3719: 3714: 3713:WP:SOAPboxing 3710: 3709: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3661: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3625: 3624: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3581: 3577: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3532: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3509: 3504: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3480: 3475: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3455: 3444: 3439: 3435: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3411:Second Coming 3408: 3403: 3398: 3394: 3389: 3385: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3323: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3309: 3305: 3297: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3247: 3242: 3238: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3204: 3191: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3091: 3086: 3082: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3048: 3046: 3041: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3017: 3011: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2987: 2982: 2978: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2928: 2919: 2914: 2910: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2871: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2811: 2808: 2806: 2796: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2779:72.225.239.38 2777:Christianity. 2767: 2762: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2744: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2697: 2696:Dear Hrafn - 2676: 2675: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2517: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2487: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2365: 2364: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2319: 2315: 2305: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2225: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2123: 2118: 2110: 2103: 2102: 2097: 2093: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044:FeloniousMonk 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2030: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997:FeloniousMonk 1994: 1991:issues up at 1989: 1985: 1984: 1975: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926:FeloniousMonk 1923: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1836:FeloniousMonk 1833: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1818:FeloniousMonk 1815: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1701: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674:Michael Palin 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1643: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1594: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1347: 1342: 1338: 1333: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1304: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1085: 1084:Ed Fitzgerald 1080: 1076: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1013: 1008: 1004: 999: 998: 993: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 971: 962: 957: 953: 948: 944: 939: 936: 935: 934: 933: 929: 925: 922:Sincerely, -- 920: 916: 907: 906: 901: 897: 893: 889: 884: 878: 874: 870: 867: 863: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 836: 833: 832: 828: 824: 811: 806: 802: 797: 793: 788: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 766: 765: 761: 757: 749: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 717: 712: 708: 703: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 685: 680: 676: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654: 651: 648: 644: 640: 639: 638: 637: 633: 629: 618: 607: 604: 600: 595: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 572: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 541: 537: 533: 528: 527: 526: 525: 522: 517: 513: 508: 504: 500: 499: 494: 493: 492: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 469: 462: 457: 453: 448: 444: 439: 438: 437: 436: 432: 428: 425: 420: 416: 412: 410: 404: 399: 395: 391: 386: 379:February 2008 374: 369: 365: 359: 358: 355: 350: 346: 341: 337: 332: 327: 326: 325: 324: 320: 316: 311: 307: 304: 301: 290: 285: 281: 275: 274: 273: 272: 268: 264: 256: 241: 236: 232: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 182: 178: 177: 172: 167: 166: 165: 164: 163: 162: 161: 160: 153: 148: 144: 138: 134: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 101: 100: 99: 96: 91: 87: 82: 77: 76: 75: 74: 70: 69: 64: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3707: 3706: 3697:Please read 3676: 3662: 3647: 3622: 3621: 3609: 3591: 3586:Hrafn, with 3585: 3579: 3575: 3542: 3519: 3516: 3512: 3505: 3502: 3494: 3473: 3459: 3456: 3452: 3414: 3406: 3387: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3346: 3345: 3341: 3334: 3301: 3295: 3255: 3205: 3201: 3176: 3168: 3099: 3049: 3045:prostitution 3042: 3039: 3020: 2996: 2992: 2990: 2966: 2944: 2922: 2903:Simon Keynes 2867: 2844: 2841:physiologist 2812: 2809: 2802: 2795: 2775: 2747: 2742: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2630: 2629:And WP:SNOW 2595: 2591: 2522:specifically 2521: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2457: 2453: 2441: 2438: 2424: 2417: 2409: 2374:Salmanmdkhan 2362: 2361: 2355: 2354: 2338: 2337: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2311: 2282: 2262: 2244:JBFrenchhorn 2242:. Thanks. 2237: 2234:David Barton 2154: 2150: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2109: 2088: 2070: 2069: 2063: 2060: 1959: 1865: 1829: 1811: 1759: 1755: 1709: 1651: 1627: 1622: 1614: 1568: 1533: 1495:You have no 1437: 1408: 1383: 1382: 1373: 1372: 1355: 1300: 1220: 1199: 1193: 1116: 1088: 1083: 1072: 1053: 1016: 996: 995: 977: 970: 947:unconflicted 946: 942: 921: 917: 913: 891: 885: 880: 876: 872: 838: 834: 819: 772: 756:66.108.4.122 752: 723:66.108.4.122 720: 691:66.108.4.122 688: 661: 657: 624: 616: 570: 566:deliberately 565: 561: 557: 553: 502: 497: 496: 476: 465: 446: 443:verification 422: 411:from editing 406: 382: 312: 308: 305: 302: 298: 259: 225: 213: 209: 205: 201: 174: 136: 132: 129: 109: 80: 66: 60: 43: 37: 3658:contrary to 3503:Hi Hrafn, 3462:Wonbillions 3291:mainstream. 3259:—Preceding 3209:—Preceding 3053:—Preceding 3016:Lee Strobel 2947:David Snoke 2941:David Snoke 2873:—Preceding 2870:anonymously 2815:—Preceding 2712:—Preceding 2635:snowballing 2477:That's why 2368:—Preceding 2314:Adnan Oktar 2294:86.50.9.167 2288:—Preceding 2258:Kent Hovind 2106:Unbalanced? 1712:Millstone99 1453:Removal of 1434:Creationism 1056:Wonbillions 1019:Wonbillions 981:Wonbillions 924:Wonbillions 823:Wonbillions 776:Wonbillions 656:Ummm, it's 575:—Preceding 407:you may be 36:This is an 3215:Ecotopian5 3173:WP:PROVEIT 3151:Anastrophe 3141:WP:PROVEIT 3110:Anastrophe 2967:uninvolved 1768:dave souza 1628:discussing 1405:WP:PROVEIT 1221:references 1153:Correct?-- 1100:dave souza 974:I hear you 662:notability 643:dave souza 599:dave souza 562:accusation 507:harassment 3650:this edit 3520:Thanks. 3386:Finally, 3001:Guettarda 2792:Vandalism 2718:Tfpeditor 2692:Tpfeditor 2496:different 2126:From the 1885:that the 1877:that the 1413:sub-pages 1075:complaint 447:more than 415:consensus 3342:churches 3273:contribs 3261:unsigned 3223:contribs 3211:unsigned 3096:nice try 3067:contribs 3055:unsigned 2875:unsigned 2817:unsigned 2748:does not 2726:contribs 2714:unsigned 2614:scratch. 2526:WP:COIed 2454:disprove 2382:contribs 2370:unsigned 2290:unsigned 2266:Hazillow 2187:Hazillow 2136:Hazillow 1882:article. 1756:Expelled 1579:WP:POINT 1556:Mike0001 1521:Mike0001 1475:Mike0001 1440:Mike0001 1086:(unfutz) 943:partisan 821:Thanks-- 589:contribs 577:unsigned 532:HokieRNB 498:spurious 482:HokieRNB 427:HokieRNB 390:edit war 263:Karanacs 3614:WP:SOAP 3364:nothing 3023:Ἀλήθεια 2952:Nyttend 2750:have a 2665:was not 2596:forever 2486:WP:SNOW 2479:WP:BITE 2450:WP:NOTE 2420:WP:SNOW 2159:WP:TALK 2113:Civilty 2015:WP:NOTE 1760:Variety 869:events. 666:WP:NOTE 409:blocked 206:crucial 39:archive 3665:NCdave 3596:NCdave 3522:NCdave 3418:Set207 3265:SFTass 3133:WP:AGF 3059:Kmm210 2971:WP:COI 2895:WP:BIO 2849:WP:BIO 2845:do not 2752:WP:COI 2739:WP:COI 2460:them. 2448:& 2327:© 2008 2178:faith. 1853:& 1812:About 1623:do not 938:WP:COI 796:WP:COI 670:WP:ORG 668:& 315:Scseig 220:& 130:always 3722:Stalk 3718:Hrafn 3683:Filll 3648:With 3633:Stalk 3629:Hrafn 3612:Your 3576:other 3438:Stalk 3434:Hrafn 3397:Stalk 3393:Hrafn 3379:WP:RS 3308:Stalk 3304:Hrafn 3283:Read 3241:Stalk 3237:Hrafn 3185:Stalk 3181:Hrafn 3125:WP:OR 3102:WP:OR 3085:Stalk 3081:Hrafn 2993:proof 2981:Stalk 2977:Hrafn 2931:Stalk 2927:Hrafn 2913:Stalk 2909:Hrafn 2858:Stalk 2854:Hrafn 2772:Unity 2761:Stalk 2757:Hrafn 2674:still 2573:Stalk 2569:Hrafn 2535:Stalk 2531:Hrafn 2511:Stalk 2507:Hrafn 2501:NEVER 2467:Stalk 2463:Hrafn 2458:prove 2219:Stalk 2215:Hrafn 2168:Stalk 2164:Hrafn 2096:Stalk 2092:Hrafn 2024:Stalk 2020:Hrafn 1969:Stalk 1965:Hrafn 1902:Stalk 1898:Hrafn 1830:Also 1741:Stalk 1737:Hrafn 1695:Stalk 1691:Hrafn 1637:Stalk 1633:Hrafn 1588:Stalk 1584:Hrafn 1575:WP:RS 1573:is a 1545:Stalk 1541:Hrafn 1510:Stalk 1506:Hrafn 1501:WP:OR 1497:WP:RS 1464:Stalk 1460:Hrafn 1455:WP:OR 1409:adder 1394:Stalk 1390:Hrafn 1381:does 1341:Stalk 1337:Hrafn 1332:WP:RS 1314:Filll 1287:Stalk 1283:Hrafn 1230:Stalk 1226:Hrafn 1143:Stalk 1139:Hrafn 1044:Stalk 1040:Hrafn 1007:Stalk 1003:Hrafn 956:Stalk 952:Hrafn 900:Stalk 896:Hrafn 805:Stalk 801:Hrafn 792:WP:RS 743:Stalk 739:Hrafn 711:Stalk 707:Hrafn 679:Stalk 675:Hrafn 628:JGG59 581:Hrafn 516:Stalk 512:Hrafn 477:first 456:Stalk 452:Hrafn 368:Stalk 364:Hrafn 349:Stalk 345:Hrafn 284:Stalk 280:Hrafn 235:Stalk 231:Hrafn 147:Stalk 143:Hrafn 90:Stalk 86:Hrafn 16:< 3687:talk 3669:talk 3623:ZERO 3600:talk 3588:this 3564:talk 3549:talk 3526:talk 3466:talk 3422:talk 3269:talk 3219:talk 3155:talk 3129:WP:V 3114:talk 3063:talk 3027:talk 3005:talk 2956:talk 2901:not 2883:talk 2825:talk 2783:talk 2722:talk 2643:talk 2592:more 2554:talk 2528:on. 2446:WP:V 2431:talk 2378:talk 2298:talk 2270:talk 2248:talk 2191:talk 2155:were 2140:talk 2071:THIS 2048:talk 2001:talk 1988:this 1930:talk 1840:talk 1822:talk 1794:talk 1772:talk 1764:here 1720:talk 1662:talk 1654:this 1560:talk 1525:talk 1479:talk 1444:talk 1422:talk 1379:WP:V 1362:talk 1358:PiCo 1318:talk 1263:talk 1259:Nowa 1245:talk 1241:Nowa 1210:talk 1206:Nowa 1183:talk 1179:Nowa 1159:talk 1155:Nowa 1123:talk 1119:Nowa 1104:talk 1060:talk 1023:talk 985:talk 928:talk 827:talk 780:talk 760:talk 727:talk 695:talk 647:talk 632:talk 626:org. 603:talk 585:talk 536:talk 486:talk 431:talk 319:talk 267:talk 210:very 176:talk 171:Whig 111:talk 106:Whig 68:talk 63:Whig 3708:NOT 3705:is 3701:-- 3335:not 3171:of 2807:? 2805:FRS 2743:not 2208:at 2151:one 1958:is 1688:. 1658:WLU 1418:WLU 1384:not 1374:not 1177:.-- 997:sub 658:not 503:not 421:. 81:one 3689:) 3671:) 3602:) 3592:my 3580:my 3566:) 3551:) 3528:) 3468:) 3424:) 3275:) 3271:• 3225:) 3221:• 3157:) 3116:) 3069:) 3065:• 3029:) 3007:) 2997:no 2958:) 2885:) 2827:) 2799:OK 2785:) 2728:) 2724:• 2645:) 2631:is 2556:) 2433:) 2384:) 2380:• 2356:IS 2332:IS 2300:) 2272:) 2250:) 2193:) 2161:. 2142:) 2050:) 2003:) 1932:) 1842:) 1824:) 1796:) 1770:, 1722:) 1664:) 1562:) 1527:) 1503:. 1481:) 1446:) 1424:) 1364:) 1320:) 1305:, 1265:) 1257:-- 1247:) 1212:) 1185:) 1161:) 1125:) 1102:, 1081:. 1062:) 1025:) 987:) 930:) 829:) 798:. 782:) 762:) 729:) 697:) 645:, 634:) 601:, 587:• 538:) 509:. 488:) 433:) 321:) 269:) 202:No 179:) 114:) 71:) 3685:( 3667:( 3598:( 3562:( 3547:( 3524:( 3464:( 3420:( 3267:( 3217:( 3153:( 3112:( 3061:( 3025:( 3003:( 2954:( 2881:( 2823:( 2781:( 2720:( 2641:( 2552:( 2429:( 2376:( 2296:( 2268:( 2246:( 2189:( 2138:( 2046:( 1999:( 1928:( 1838:( 1820:( 1792:( 1718:( 1660:( 1558:( 1523:( 1477:( 1442:( 1420:( 1360:( 1316:( 1261:( 1243:( 1208:( 1181:( 1157:( 1121:( 1058:( 1021:( 983:( 926:( 825:( 778:( 758:( 725:( 693:( 630:( 583:( 534:( 484:( 429:( 317:( 265:( 173:( 169:— 108:( 104:— 65:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index