Revision as of 16:59, 12 December 2006 editMathchem271828 (talk | contribs)201 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 12 December 2006 edit undoJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits Your most recent commentNext edit → | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Sure that'd be great. --] | Sure that'd be great. --] | ||
== Your most recent comment == | |||
People's religious beliefs are relevant when we are a) trying to make general biographies not just list their scientific accomplishments and b) are well known for their religious beliefs (although both Schaefer and Demsbki would argue that what they are doing in those regards is science). There is absolutely no way one can argue that Dembski has done anything at all notable except for his intelligent design work- are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article on him for that reason? Finally, please see ] and consider archiving comments rather than blanking them- this will make it much easier for other users if they want to later read an exchange to read what happened- at minimum, blanking a section when you are still discussing it is both rude and inconvenient since it forces anyone replying to start yet another section to reply. ] 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:04, 12 December 2006
Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now
Sorry to bother you, but as an things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Henry F. Schaefer, III
I want to make it clear to any one who might browse my talk page that I had nothing to do with the current status of that page. I tried to put it back to where it was about the science and failed because other users wanted to make it about religion and ID, which obviously aren't science.
Your eforts on the Schaefer page missed me as I was busy doing other things and anyway I am on the other side of the world and do things at different times. I was in the Schaefer group in 1990 on sabbatical and collaborated with him for several years after that. I think I have published 9 papers with him. I respect his science greatly and do not agree with him in any respect on religion. Please e-mail me from my user page and let us talk about him off wiki for a while. It is too late at night here now for more. --Bduke 11:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure that'd be great. --mathchem271828
Your most recent comment
People's religious beliefs are relevant when we are a) trying to make general biographies not just list their scientific accomplishments and b) are well known for their religious beliefs (although both Schaefer and Demsbki would argue that what they are doing in those regards is science). There is absolutely no way one can argue that Dembski has done anything at all notable except for his intelligent design work- are you suggesting that we shouldn't have an article on him for that reason? Finally, please see WP:ARCHIVE and consider archiving comments rather than blanking them- this will make it much easier for other users if they want to later read an exchange to read what happened- at minimum, blanking a section when you are still discussing it is both rude and inconvenient since it forces anyone replying to start yet another section to reply. JoshuaZ 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Category: