User:Pbarnes/archive

Your attempt to redirect/merge Premarital sex to Fornication

Please stop trying to redirect/merge Premarital sex to Fornication without first getting consensus on such a move. Please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages on the procedure to propose a merger. Additionally, your attempt to redirect the page failed because you had the redirect syntax incorrect. However, please do follow proper procedure before attempting the redirect/merge again. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo 05:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: I am glad that you have decided to open the merger for discusssion as I do not believe that there was a consensus on the merge. -- Gogo Dodo 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during October 22 2006 (UTC) to Premarital sex

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. Have you reviewed WP:NPOV? I think some editors might take issue with redirecting premarital sex to fornication as a violation of that. Besides, reguardless of anyone's beliefs, the two topics probably merit separate articles. Anyway, thanks for editing! Let me know if you have any questions or comments on my talk page. Peace, delldot | talk 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Not to seem like I'm stalking you, but I reverted the removal of the stuff from the talk page at fornication because it's wikipedia custom to save old talk page material or archive it wholesale, not to remove bits. Anyway, take care. Peace, delldot | talk 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

fornication

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. Sorry for assuming you had not sought consensus on the talk page first, i see that I was wrong. Yet I still feel like the merger isn't really appropriate. maybe we could just cut duplicate material and link the two articles? I noticed I wasn't the only one that disagreed with the merge. Maybe we could ask others for their opinions? Peace, delldot | talk 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still say we should seek consensus before going ahead. I noticed an additional person must think so too because they've been reverting your edits as well. I think all this definitely merits more discussion. I can ask others to join the discussion if you like. Peace, delldot | talk 06:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Sex

I indeed valued your contributions to fornication, I think that wikipedia doesn't have anything on this, and it deserves its own article, Christian Perpective of Sex, you're more than welcome to add to it.

Blanking

You blanked half the article, so I reverted the blanking. What else would you expect someone to do? Guettarda 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Baraminology

As I said on the deletion page, I oposse the Baraminology article because, although the term is somewhat well-known, there doesn't seem to be more than a few sentences in the article that deal with verifiable facts about it. Indeed, it opens up with a confusing naming of a lot of terms which do not show up in any significance on Google. In short, there doesn't seem to be an ability to talk about it in a verifiable way that reflects the "field" accurately. Frankly, because I think it's just a set of sciency-sounding words that they use to try and sound intelligent. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD notices

Do not remove an active AfD notice, as you have done here and here. As it clearly says in the text of the template: Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled. Thank you. Guettarda 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been listed properly for deletion. You are aware of that - you have contributed to the discussion. Stop pretending not to be aware of a discussion to which you have contributed. The other editors here aren't that dumb. Guettarda 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fix the deletion tag so it goes to the right place. Pbarnes 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Err...why do you expect others to clean up your mess? If you want the AfD discussion to match the page name, move it back to the original name. Removal of AfD notices is vandalism - please stop! Guettarda 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have also reverted the page three times. Reverting it a fourth time will place you in violation of the three-revert rule. You can be blocked from editing for reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours. Guettarda 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note that I have reverted your recent blanking of the Orchard Theory AfD. Please understand that it is not considered acceptable to blank active discussions. All comments must remain available for consideration by the closing admin, with the exception of personal attacks blatant vandalisms. Please don not blank the discussion again. Thank you. Doc Tropics 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto above for 2nd time. Nashville Monkey 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And let's not add the

   template again.  •Jim62sch• 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Move of common descent

I am removing the boiler you just added to the article on common descent, as you seem to have added it incorrectly. Firstly, it is to be used only in instances where the 'move' tab will not work. Secondly, it is to be used with a parameter specifying the new name. Thirdly, it is to be placedon the Talk page, not in the article itself.

Feel free to discuss moving the article. Just do it without this template. -- Ec5618 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, your common descent move request does not on its own require admin intervention. Second, moving common descent to universal common descent is not an uncontroversial proposal, as you probably already know from the deletion debate on orchard theory. If you want to pursue this move, please seek consensus on the talk page first. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard

It's a misleasding citation because it's only clear what you're talking about if you look at the citation: Not good. It's a rhetorical flourish in the uncited bit that makes it sound like creationist views are a great new discovery that disproved Darwin, and clarifying it to something very different only in the footnote is somewhat dishonest, though I don't think you meant it intentionally. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixity of species

It was deleted via AfD, the AfD upheld so far at DRV. Don't recreate deleted material, please. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article had been deleted by a valid AfD, and a DRV was in the works, but you went ahead and recreated the article anyway. That was not the right thing to do. And why are there no section "Edit" tags on this page? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I kept recreating it in order to find out who was deleting it so I could talk to them. If they had notified me the first time this wouldn't be an issue. Pbarnes 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) - Uh, I did notify you. See the comments above. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's text at the top of every deleted page which explains this: If a page previously existed at this exact title, check the deletion log and see Why was my page deleted?. In addition, how is it that you participated in the deletion debate, posted to DRV, and claim you don't know why the page was deleted? Guettarda 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixity of species

This article was deleted as a repost of an article deleted by consensus, and with a failed deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20. Please don't repost it again without seeking another deletion review and explaining what's different about your new article. NawlinWiki 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As you requested, I copied the text of the deleted article to your userspace at User:Pbarnes/Fixity of species2. NawlinWiki 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3rr

I have filed a 3rr report regarding your edits to Common descent. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. Cheers, Vsmith 03:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

suggestion(s)

Id have emailed this, but you haven't enabled it; I feel uncomfortable about being on the other side in AfD discussions--you've been doing good work on topics that interest me as well, but somehow it sometimes doesn't really fit in with the already existing pages at the evolution or creationism series. I'd like to encourage you to continue-- but if you like to offer some ideas for places that need work. (When I start at WP, I thought I'd work on evolution, but I've decided not to edit there but elsewhere, in order to avoid the edit wars. I'd have been glad to work on either side of the fence, but I found myself always defending rather than writing & moved on to scientific publishing and related topics. If you don't mind the problems, keep on, because there will always be that sort of problems. I also like your work on Christian doctrines, by the way, & many of the articles there haven't been revised since 1913--there are a few very good knowledgeable people, but not enough to cope with the mass of old material.) DGG 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Common decent

I'm just against mixing science and religion. As to where to place it, I'm not an expert on the various creationist theologies, sorry. --Michael Johnson 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Framework interpretation

Hi Pbarnes! Thanks for expanding the Literary framework view article. I look forward to the article improving over time. Regards, Tonicthebrown 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I guess my concern about "framework theory" is that it makes it more open to attack by creationists who'll say things like "it's just an unsubstantiated theory"; when in fact it is a well established view among theologians with strong exegetical support. I have noticed that Answers in Genesis like to call it "hypothesis", and I suspect this is the reason. The creationists have a tendency to lead people to misunderstand the word "theory", as when they attack the "theory of evolution" as "just being a theory". What do you think? cheers, Tonicthebrown 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Framework interpretation". How about we rename the page to "Framework interpretation (Genesis)". We can then redirect the other titles there. Thanks Tonicthebrown 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pbarnes. I think the framework interpreation article is coming along really well. Thanks for all your contributions. I've also noted that you have created an article for Henri Blocher - well done! Cheers, Tonicthebrown 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, framework interpretation (Genesis), was selected for DYK!

On February 21, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article framework interpretation (Genesis), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neocreationism

I don't get the edit war right now. Can you explain? And regarding your editing commentary--there really is no "truth" so to speak. It's a matter of verifiable writing. Orangemarlin 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

global warming wp:npov

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at global warming. Please always observe our core policies. Some of what you wrote was speculative and some twisted truth: the radiative forcing of water is closer to twice as much as carbon dioxide, not three times. Bendž|Ť 08:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Numerology

I see you're starting a new version of this article. Make sure that you've carefully read No Original Research, and that all of the information in the article is from reliable sources. Good luck! -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Biblical Numerology

Biblical Numerology, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Biblical Numerology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Biblical Numerology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)