User talk:RucasHost/Archive 2

Notability of Porter Street Elementary School

A tag has been placed on Porter Street Elementary School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall ^talk 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Caveat on James

If you look at the King's talk page, you will notice how Christians are blasted like there's no tomorrow, while gay conspiracy theorists are lauded, a plainly self-promotional editorial approach by the queer POV brigade. You should really look at Personal relationships of James I of England, which I added significantly to by creating the section Inconsistencies in theory. Lord Loxley 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --RucasHost 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing project tags

Hi! Please don't take project tags off of articles, as you did at Talk:James I of England. The project tags add the article to a list that is watchlisted by the WikiProject, and removing it keeps us from accessing it easily. Remember, being within the scope of WikiProject LGBT Studies isn't the same thing as identifying the person as gay; Fred Phelps is also within the scope of the project. But articles about people who are perceived as gay - like King James so widely is- get a lot of extra vandalism, which we use our watchlist to revert. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

References on Dating the Bible

My mistake - I mistook the little superscript numerals on the papyri in the lead for reference numbers - which they are, but not in relation to this article. PiCo 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I kinda figured that was the case. --RucasHost 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of nontheists AfD

Hello RucasHost! How are you? I have nominated Nontheism and List of nontheists for deletion. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Recently, List of Christians was deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). I think we should delete unencyclopedic articles and lists. Please voice your views on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nontheists. Thank you. RS1900 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References on Dating the Bible

Hey, I noticed you changed dogma to child pornography in the The Satanic Bible. Wikipedia isn't a place for this kind of bias. Thanks, --85.211.244.198 14:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was. In fact you were on the verge of violationing 3RR and did violate NPOV at the same time. Please archive if you want to remove this section - a warning from the community. --Statsone 05:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you're talking about. Someone with an IP vandalized the article and I reverted it. Then I got a message from this IP person saying it was some sort of POV issue. --RucasHost 06:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kazacharthra

There really is an extinct order of branchiopod crustaceans called "Kazacharthra," related to tadpole shrimp. Granted, they are an obscure group, but they are not a hoax.--Mr Fink 04:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, still the article needs references. --RucasHost 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy fetishism edit summary

Hi, Please don't describe my edits as vandalism ("rvv" - difflink) just because you disagree with them. I have removed the statement about paedophilia to the talkpage because it needs a reliable source.--BelovedFreak 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I should have just deleted the statement in the first place, it's POV which ever spin one puts on it. --BelovedFreak 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rational Response Squad, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  –  ornis⚙ 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ornis, get lost. Those were legitimate edits and you know it. Stop hiding behind your irrelevant templates. --RucasHost 12:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Your edits to this page are violating multiple policies, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you continue to restore your edits, which fail any number of policies, you could be blocked. Bushisantichrist.com is not acceptable. Stop it now, and revert your last edit. - auburnpilot talk 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which policies am I violating? You said it was OR, but I provided numerous references. If you don't like the Bushisantichrist.com reference, I also added one from the New Catholic Times. --RucasHost 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

Watch WP:3RR.  –  ornis⚙ 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You to. --RucasHost 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are at 4 reverts on Richard Dawkins I suggest you revert your last edit.  –  ornis⚙ 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

Your input is requested here. Thank you. --profg 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the message. The TrueOrigin Archive is certainly a very notable (and high quality) website, there's no good reason to delete it's article. --RucasHost 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF

I strongly suggest you read our guideline about assuming good faith, our policy on no personal attacks and our notability guideline. JoshuaZ 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. Thanks for the message though. --RucasHost 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueOrigin Archive did not meet the assume good faith guideline. I refer specifically to the comment in which you apppeared to assume that the primary motivation of 'delete' voters in that discussion was not determining whether or not the web site meets the notability guidelines, but was instead a desire to delete all articles about creationism because they hate the subject. If you were assuming good faith in that situation, you would assume that editors who disagree with you about the notability of that web site were still motivated by a desire to make sure all articles are well sourced, and that is not the assumption that you made when you added that comment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the tip. --RucasHost 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Richard Dawkins

Only a few hours after the protection on Richard Dawkins has expired and you've set to editing the page again? You came very close to a block for edit warring last time, so I hope you'll be more careful this time around. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits are constructive, it was another user who provoked the edit warring. I had very good reason to add that section, the people have a right to know of Dawkins' antisemetic beliefs. --RucasHost 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Richard Dawkins. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  – ornis⚙ 07:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a high-quality reference from YnetNews. Check more carefully, before you make a fool out of yourself again. --RucasHost 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4RR again... I suggest you revert you last edit. Oh and WP:NPA. cheers.  – ornis⚙ 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins

Interesting little controversy Dawkins attracted with his foolish remark. If he had said "pro-Israel lobby", he wouldn't have been as vulnerable to the anti-Semitism charge, whether or not he is, in his heart, anti-Semitic. I hope that the Dawkins folks can behave more in the spirit of WP. DCDuring 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins was one of my favorite authors up until his agressive hostility to religion. I am an atheist, but not anti-religious in principle. Nevertheless in my relative newbie opinion (only really active for ~6 weeks) the Dawkins page consensus is POV. I think I know where it comes from. I have seen how embattled the editors at the various evolution-related pages are. Vandalism is common to many WP articles, but the extent of it in evolution pages is amazing. In the end, this is not supposed to be anyone's soapbox; it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, but the disproportionate interest in the big controversy pages compared to the meat-and-potatoes articles suggests otherwise. DCDuring 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please don't add it without further explaining why -- see the conversation above yours in the talk page -- the controversy is woven into the article, there's no need for a section on it. Gscshoyru 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the controversy in the article? Every time some has added something about his anti-Semetic beliefs, it has been removed! --RucasHost 05:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush as Freemason

Point taken -- I forgot which article that was in.--SarekOfVulcan 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we could agree on this. --RucasHost 14:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are becoming a problem....

You are removing material for reasons that do not fit the removals. The lead for Illuminati did not say the theories were fictitious, only that there are real and fictional Illuminati, which is supported by the article. As for Masonic conspiracy theories, neither Bush is now or ever was a Mason. The last President to be a Mason was Ford, and thus to state that they are not is not a NPOV issue, but rather a statement of pure fact. MSJapan 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush is not publicly a Mason; however, there are a few conspiracy theorists who believe he is. It's a secret society, so it's possible he is keeping his alleged membership secret. Either way, it's not NPOV to immediatley discount their theories as false. Furthermore, those types of statements don't belong under the References section. --RucasHost 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a secret society: if you were to contact the secretary of whatever lodge he's alleged to be a member of, you would get an accurate answer. For example, if you were to contact the secretary of my lodge, he would tell you I was a member. You could walk into any lodge building before a meeting and look at the pictures and names on the walls with no problem. You'd probably be asked to leave the building when the meeting started, so the Tyler could "guard the outer door" and watch the meeting from outside the inner door, but anything on public display is public. Many (most?) installations of officers are open to the public, if not publically advertised. In fact, if you have any questions about whether we worship God or something else, you should definitely attend an open installation and see what kind of language we use in our ritual. What we say behind closed doors doesn't appreciably differ from that.(added by SarekOfVulcan at some point near the previous edit)

Eastern Star Controversy

I'll think about it, but I'm not sure that's any better.--SarekOfVulcan 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Masonic conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. SarekOfVulcan 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --RucasHost 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Word of God

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Word of God, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Word of God is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Word of God, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I speedily deleted Word of God and protected it from re-creation. The AFD result was to delete without creating a redirect, as redirecting it to anywhere cannot possibly be NPOV (as determined in the AFD discussion). Attempts to circumvent this could result in you being blocked for a period of time for disruption and violation of WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)