User talk:7kingis

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content (particularly if you change facts and please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Also, note our policies on due weight when it comes to fringe scientific topics. Auntie E. (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Auntie E When comparing Morris' page to that of Richard Dawkins, we see in RD's page there are large un-referenced tracts of text, text that nobody would disagree with. Likewise Henry Morris' impact on the science community is a fact nobody would disagree with, and as such, going by the Dawkins page, doesn't need referencing. More to the point, the defamatory references long present, without citation, in the biography section covering Morris quoted here:(After a dispute with the administration of the university[citation needed], Morris resigned from his position at Virginia Tech in 1969. In 1970, he founded the Institute...) cry out for a reference warning.

The page is about Henry Morris, not about what people who disagree with him thought. Many people agree with his scientific views, people of impeccable scientific credentials, yet their referenced writings are summarily deleted from the page. Why?

I appreciate that you have not deleted my account yet, as so often happens in this situation. 7kingis (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flood
Please don't attempt to recreate a POV fork of Deluge myth and use it to attack other Wikipedia editors. Deluge myth already covers your desired "Great flood" material - plus there is also an article on Noah's Ark. Why not work to improve those and other articles in a WP:NPOV manner? Or discuss your concerns about the subject on the various talk pages. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia to fight a battle against your perceived enemies. It is behavior that that is considered disruptive and will get you blocked if you continue. People of all points of view are able to edit here in a civil and collaborative manner, but we can't do it in a warlike mentality. Auntie E. (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've written a little story here as therapy. What do you think? 7kingis (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What a lovely story. :) Auntie E. (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/7kingis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Auntie E. (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Inappropriate comment
 * action=remove
 * reason=WP:NPA
 * comment=Comment blanked as a personal attack

Auntie E
This section is a possible page about the well known Uniformitarian Wikipedia enforcer, known only as Auntie E.

Belonging to that select band of senior Wikipedia editors that maintian Wikipedia's Uniformitarian Religious Hegemony, Auntie E is a highly skilled manipulator of Wiki-Speak, being able to disgiuse his / her Uniformitarian Censorship with brilliant turns of archane, enigmatic Wiki-Phrase.

Being something of a Dr Who, Auntie E suddenly materializes out of nowhere to delete accounts, rebuke non-Uniformitarians and generally make obscure accusations in a silky Wiki-Speak dialect. Attempting to converse with Auntie E is a waste of time, because he / her never revisits the site of his / her previous appearances. Again, very like Dr Who.

Whether this non-revisiting behaviour is because the Wiki-Lords snatch Auntie E away to other realms of conflict (Dr Who again), or because Auntie E is above discoursing with mere mortals, is a moot point. It could be that Auntie E is really an organism composed of various Wiki Editors, who cunningly work through a remote login somewhere to hide their true identity.

Conspirationalists undoubtedly suspect Aunti E of monitoring their every edit, and scanning their IP ranges, ready to block them should they break the Uniformitarian Faith. This would be madness, however, as Auntie E undoubtedly has a life somewhere, and better things to do. 7kingis (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

}}

WP:3rr caution
Please read and comply with WP:3rr as you seem to be in violation on uniformitarianism. Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Tigges


The article Michael Tigges has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Lack of notability. The only claim I see is to receiving the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal, and since he was one of about three dozen recipients that year, it doesn't merit a biographical article in itself.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Auntie E. (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

7kingis (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Publications
7kingis (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) We are puzzled as to auntie entropy and her self professed objectivity, when we see her dead hand of POV appearing elsewhere. .It's all just a game, of course, of intellectual ego-jousting. 7kingis (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Japeth
Hi reverted your removal of the redirect, there is no reason which I can see for this. Is there something I'm missing? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Japeth is a widely known and fundamental historical character, whose name is apparently used by a minor character in a little-known movie. If you can't understand why redirecting to 'hoodwinked' is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, then you aren't suitable as an editor. Go to your local library and ask for some books featuring Japeth, the son of Noah. He is mentioned by ancient European and Eastern genealogies, which are kept in the major university libraries. He is also known as Jupiter, Pro Japater, Iafeth etc.7kingis (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to read Personal attack, Civility and Assume good faith. Japheth is the figure you are referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Miracles, atheism and using our articles as sources
We never use our articles as sources. And seriously, you should know that for an atheist there can be no miracles. Using the word informally is irrelevant and not even in your source. Doug Weller talk 06:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Doug This strikes at the heart of the matter: radical atheist Wikipedia editors need to accept that their religion is another of the many out there. But as to sources, I'd propose Einstein's original quote, taken from Morris Kline's 'Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 1985)' "You find it surprising that I think of the comprehensibility of the world... as a miracle or an eternal mystery.....But surely, a priori, one should expect the world to chaotic, not to be grasped by thought in any way....Therein lies the "miracle" which becomes more and more evident as our knowledge develops.... And here is the weak point of positivists and of professional atheists, who feel happy because they think that they have pre-empted the world of the divine, but also of the miraculous."

He's talking about you there. We could survey the reference books and peer-edited journals for thousands of quotes in which atheist scientists use the word 'miracle' in a non-formal, academically received manner, fully understanding what it entails: They mean that some phenomena is inexplicable from a rationalistic viewpoint. It is only reasonable to include these published articles in a wiki page on miracles, because from an epistemological viewpoint, that is what they are. Unless you wish to engage in special pleading, that the atheist editors will get their noses out of joint? 7kingis (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Put your money where your mouth is. Change the article Atheism to state that it's a religion. Until then, please stop pretending it is. Doug Weller  talk 13:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with your edits at Bertrand Russell
First, you added "once" to the statement "Russell described himself as an agnostic," which was clearly misleading as he described himself as an agnostic more than once. Secondly, you cherry-picked a quote from Russell, called it a "spiritual confession" with no source for that (see WP:NOR, and your use of "however" made it appear as though he was someone denying that he was an agnostic. Doug Weller  talk 14:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Atheism
Thanks for add the criticism section. It looks good. desmay (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks policy
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This comment is unacceptable at Wikipedia per WP:NPA. Please do not repeat it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)