User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hermunduri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Domitius, Saal, Historia Naturalis and Ister


 * Chattuarii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Triumph and Ems


 * Dulgubnii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Ems and Lombardi


 * Chamavi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ems


 * Chasuarii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ems

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discorsi
Yellow there! I did some reformatting; there are guidelines at MOS:DAB, if you want to take a peek. The most important one (in my opinion) is to keep wikilinks as sparse as possible (to avoid confusion). Thanks for creating it, though! Cheers,  Ignatz mice•talk 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Valention2013 taken to ANI
He restored the copyvio again. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567100693 your edit] to Common sense may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * in this period of Aristotle and scholasticism, but not classical learning in its entirety. Francis Bacon and Grotius. In this he went further than his predecessors concerning the ancient

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Common sense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Gassendi and Peripatetic


 * Low Countries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to United Provinces

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article on "Republic"
Could you fix the vandalism in the first paragraph of the article on "Republic" (deletion of the words "panda bear" and general revision to the text to revert that paragraph to the language of August 22)? I do not edit well and I see that you have previously curated that article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccarthd (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed it. Fixed now. Thanks for the note.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
Hey, this is about the ID thing. Wasn't sure what the protocol is for replying. I replied on my own talk page. Do I have to reply here? BabyJonas (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ayala's review
Hi, I've just emailed you a hard-to-read copy of that review. Yopienso (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPO
I have undone your recent edits at Talk:Intelligent design. Please add any comments you wish, but refrain from refactoring mine. I am obviously not devoting as much time and energy to the issue as some editors, so I concede that I may be mistaken (although I was not referring to WP:UCN), but moving stuff around needs stronger justification. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Impolite behaviour
I am writing here to object formally to the way you have been addressing me on WP. I hope that after reading this your conduct will improve and that you will be polite towards me, and others, in the future.

I note that WP:npa says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

I have collected all the insults and impolite language you have used to me over the past few days. Please reflect upon these and change your behaviour.

After a large piece of my edits were deleted by you saying they were OR, I wrote:

Recent changes by Andrew Lancaster

These have completely destroyed my carefully cited entries in the new section, which we

have been discussing quite amicably, and replaced them with something of your own,

which has not been agreed by those involved. This is not on! I am reverting your edits. I

suggest strongly that we ask for a 3rd opinion or go to a dispute.

AL wrote:

"My"? This is not your article and in the end the "important" thing is whether my edits

made the article worse or better. Please try to explain in terms of what is good or bad for

the article. Amicable is a nice word, and I do indeed think I have been, but please keep

in mind that telling me not to edit (not even to post drafts) is not amicable from your

side, and you are certainly not being amicable. I did attempt to explain concerns here

and in my edit summaries but you have not been very interested.

I wrote:

You know that I have altered a good deal of my original stab at this section in order to

incorporate your ideas. So to say I have not been interested in them is just not true. I

never said you could not post drafts. Where does that come from?

AL's comment to me:

You have no right to insist that other editors accept your work as un-improvable.

Myrvin: Anyone's work can be improved. I disagree with your reason for the change

After me requesting a Third Opinion and AL producing a detailed list of the edits in question:

AL:

If you simply refuse to give reasons not to ignore your desires, then obviously that is

what I will eventually do. You do not own this article and stop me from editing it without

giving reasons

So without checking any facts, you are going to assume I am telling a lie with my

explanation on the talkpage

That really is a hopeless response

I wrote:

I await the third opinion. Myrvin (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

AL wrote:

I am not sure if you are looking for a third opinion actively or just hoping someone will

turn up, but in any case I believe there is no reason for me to stop editing and I do

intend to start editing again. I am quite confident that any reasonable third opinion is

going to start by pointing out to you that you should try responding to reasonable

questions and proposals in a rational way on the talk page.

I said:

Another insult. I have contacted 2 possible 3O people - I don't know who they are. If

nothing happens in a day or two, I'll raise a Dispute - or you can do it if you like.

AL said:

I am just going to edit. I see no dispute as such, and neither will any third party. There is

just one editor who wants to try to stop another one from editing, without having to

bother trying to understand the other editor's positions, or read the sources he cites. By

the way, I doubt making obvious false accusations is going to help you. (There is no

insult in the above post, or in any other where you claimed to see them.)

I am quite confident that any reasonable third opinion is going to start by pointing out to

you that you should try responding to reasonable questions and proposals in a rational

way on the talk page.

After my response to the 3O:

And of course your remark implying that you looked in the Phaedo and only found

mention of his criticism of another philosopher basically tells me that instead of looking

at the Phaedo you looked at what I'd cited previously about the Phaedo, because that is

exactly a bit I had extracted.

you just ignored my explanations and claim to have done another search which, for some

reason, avoids looking at either the dialogue, or the sources I named.

You are quite demanding to me, but your own efforts seem not to be very diligent.

Myrvin:

Once again, I am "not very diligent" and "I haven't looked at" the book, and only

"claim" to have done a search. Please stop attacking me.

AL: Your approach is impractical. It can not be that every time I post something and give a

source, that you can delete it and call in a third party, instead of just checking the

sources or making a real concern clear? This way of working is not really allowed

according to my understanding of WP norms, and if you are calling for third party

opinions maybe you should ask whether I am right about that

After me suggesting a quotation:

AL: I have made a proposal above, and you have not explained what was wrong with it. (You

said you were not sure about the sourcing and the correctness, but that is not really a

constructive opinion.)

I said:

please stop insulting me

In the Reliable sources/Noticeboard started by AL:

After I gave a source and quotation in support of the doubted citation:

AL: Myrvin, a reason for using this noticeboard is to isolate out specific questions related to

sourcing, one at a time. You have swamped this with a whole bunch of points that would

need extensive discussion. Can't you stick to the one above? I feel compelled to give

some comment because you are clearly trying to give an impression

Myrvin: Saying that I am "clearly trying to give an impression" is another insult to add to the many you have made to me on the Talk page. I have asked you to stop doing this. Why can't you just be polite for once? I am pointing to the problem at hand and giving a citation that supports my view. You gave 7 sources above to support yours.

After my response to another editor's view:

AL: Myrvin you are highjacking this thread! If you want to raise other questions for this

noticeboard or others, please post them separately! Myrvin (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation returned
Andrew, I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a battlefield
Andrew, you've put a lot of effort into making proposals at Talk:intelligent design, and have brought up some good points, but despite requests by others to make clear simple proposals and format your posts so that it's more feasible for others to reply, you keep on adding large chunks of text, while throwing in allegations about other editors. Offtopic talk of "culture war" really doesn't help. Please slow down and take more care, Wikipedia is not a battleground. It may be frustrating for you when other editors don't keep up with your flow of ideas, but time is needed to research and respond to your comments, and more patience will allow fruitful discussions. . . dave souza, talk 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. You've written this as a reaction to me posting on your talk page. Seen all this type of set-up before. Indeed it is not a battlefield User:Dave souza. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seen it before? Then you should appreciate that such discussion is the first stage in dispute resolution, which I very much hope won't be needed. Please try to keep on topic and work in a collegiate way, . dave souza, talk 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say thanks for working together to find agreements on a direction for improving the article, I think we're making useful clarifications and appreciate the additional sources that you've found. . dave souza, talk 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malebranche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Article on E-M35 and Languages
Hi, are you the author of: Y Haplogroups, Archaeological Cultures and Language Families: A Review of the Possibility of Multidisciplinary Comparisons Using the Case of Haplogroup E-M35? If so there are some things in it that aren't consistent with the archaeological record even in 2009. I also see these same mistakes in other very recent articles too. Aikavol3265381519 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Common Sense
Andrew, Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment on my talk page, if you had not already ascertained that. Thanks for your post and assistance. Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A priori (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common sense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suebi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Low Countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clan MacLea
I have seen that you have removed some of the information I put into the Clan MacLea article with your reason being that the information related to the Lowland Livingstone family. Ok, well I have a question: Which family do the current chiefs, who have the actual surname Livingstone, come from ? There is nothing in the article to say who the current chiefs named Livingstone are descended from historically. Surely if they are from the Lowland Livingstones then information relating to the family of the Lowlands should be included in the article. I am curious because the article currently says that: "In the mid seventeenth century James Livingston of Skirling, who was of a branch of these Lowland Livingstons, was granted a nineteen-year lease of the Bishoprics of Argyll and the Isles. Sometime before 1648, James Livingston seems to have stayed at Achanduin Castle on Lismore, and it is thought that around this time that the surname Livingstone would have been adopted by MacLeas on the islands". (I have checked the official website of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and found that the chief of Clan MacLea is indeed named Livingstone, so that is all in order). QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=579291913 your edit] to Banochaemae may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=579299790 your edit] to Banochaemae may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is, he reports, in turn north of the Askiburgium mountains (probably the Riesengebirge ) and the Lugi Buri, which are in turn north of the source of the [[
 * . This is, he reports, in turn north of the Askiburgium mountains (probably the Riesengebirge ) and the Lugi Buri, which are in turn north of the source of the [[

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suebi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hoge Kempen National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Watershed


 * Revolt of the Batavi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Batavi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I dropped you a line
Garamond Lethe t c  21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN
As much as I agree with you, it might be better if you let the Rothbard sideshow drop: you are dealing with someone who shows all the tendencies of being able to start a fight in an empty room. My bet is that they'll not be around for much longer. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about your view
Hi Andrew, I've been reviewing the discussion on ID and I'm trying to evaluate consensus. I have a question for you, regarding your particular view, so I'm bringing it to your User Talk page: Are you saying the conceptions of ID as mentioned by, for example, Sara Ahbel-Rappe citing Socrates, and in the book by Barbara Ann Naddeo, are essentially the same as the ID that sprung up since the 1980s and promoted by the DI, or are they fundamentally different in some way? Are those discussions of the ID concept in relation to the pre-19th century figures talking about conceptions of ID that have persisted in time through to today and are current ID ideas competing alongside the DI's ID, or are those conceptions historical? Thanks... 04:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Zad68! The quick answer is yes. Any reading of the literature makes it clear that the term is not being used by accident. Also within literature about the intelligent design movement, the comment is made over and over that ID is an old religious concept (argument from design), not a new one. I think you are also asking whether there are still for example people who look back to Thomas Aquinas or William Paley and call themselves, or are called by others, proponents of "intelligent design"? There are certainly still people like that who look to Aquinas and Paley. But it seems to me that the term intelligent design is rarely applied to them in practice, and I think (though I can not source this) the reason is likely that it would be confusing given that the term is so strongly associated with the intelligent design theory of the intelligent design movement. To make it clear I am not opposed to us having our article also focused upon the intelligent design theory of the intelligent design movement, based on the type of reasoning I just mentioned (avoiding ambiguity). But we should avoid ambiguity in other ways too, and it remains true that our sources frequently and not rarely do refer to one historical concept which is also the core concept of the movement. And to make it clear, we also have no sources, of course, which say that the modern followers of Aquinas have no belief in intelligent design, because at least by one common definition they do. There is no source telling us that the term has different meanings in different periods for example. My main concern is therefore that there is a tradition on this article that the wording in the lead is forbidden from mentioning any other meaning or confusion concerning the term "intelligent design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning the question of policies for wording in leads, an example of I think many editors have been proposing on ID is something like the opening lines of Limousine. I hesitate to mention this or any other example on the talkpage lest we get a swarm of editors rushing over to ruin that article! Their long term argument is that this is forbidden, and that there are only two alternatives: either we MUST move/merge/delete the whole article, or else the lead MUST NOT mention alternative meanings and potential confusions for the article name. This is for example the position MisterDub is taking relatively openly in recent posts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Back to the first question, I just did some googling and found this blog expressing an opinion about people outside the intelligent design movement as such, with all its politics and specific textbook issues, but still proponents of something which is essentially an intelligent design argument. I think it is reasonable, but of course I do not propose we use it as a source. I just offer it as a vision of how a lot of people see definitions, and the reasons for using words in ways not quite like the definitions. Again: it is all about avoiding ambiguity, not definitions, and we should also want to avoid ambiguity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew asked me to chime in here concerning people who advocate intelligent design (and there are reliable sources which say this in just such words), but who are nonetheless not part of the "intelligent design movement", at least not as that term is defined at intelligent design movement. I think a clear example would be Robert John Russell. Russell is just an idiosyncratic natural theologian, he even argued that intelligent design should not be taught in science classrooms: that would seem to oppose the intelligent design movement. For a source concerning Russell, see Michael Ruse's "Natural Theology: The Biological Sciences" in Re Manning, Russell (ed.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology" (OUP, 2013), p. 415: "'Another option is to take the job away from science and to hand it over to God. This is the gambit played by physicist-theologian Robert John Russell (2008). He wants to put God's direction in down at the quantum level. Apparently all we can see are the averages, but God can decide just when and where the right mutations will occur and as a result the appearance of human is no chance. In a way, of course, this is a version of Intelligent Design Theory, and as such open to the same problems.'" Another example would be Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. He's an old-timey Thomist. I'm sure one could find many more current catholic theologians like Schönborn. For Schönborn, see chapter 8 of Joan Roughgarden's Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist (Island Press, 2007), and Daniel Dennett's "The Hoax of Intelligent Design and How it was Perpetrated" in Brockman, John (ed.), "Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement" (Random House, 2007), p. 39: "'the Cardinal's conclusion is that the presence of a finished product—a fully-evolved eye for instance—is evidence of an intelligent-design process.'" I think another example would be Robin Collins. Maybe Collins was at one point part of the intelligent design movement, but not any more. Collins is a fringe, "forbidden" science, Rupert Sheldrake fan. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A small aside that I'll tuck away in its own section
Andrew, you've made a curious statement above: Any reading of the literature makes it clear that the term is not being used by accident.  You may have intended this as a rhetorical flourish, but even so this shows how far your opinion diverges from most of the other editors at Intelligent Design.

What would it mean from a phrase to be used "accidentally"? I would guess that if a synonymous phrase could be introduced with little change in meaning or nuance, then the use of one phrase over another could be termed accidental. I'll choose the phrase "particular creation" as my synonym. Let's start with the first of the historical instances provided by John Wilkins. I'll render the 1766 review of H. S. Reimarus's The Principle Truths as:

"The marks of these perfections are so numerous, so clear, and so striking to every attentive observer, that it is just matter of wonder, that any who call themselves Philosophers, should exclude active, particular creation from the universe, and ascribe the whole material world, with its various and astonishing phenomena, to blind chance and necessity."

I don't see that my synonym has materially affected the sense of the passage, and so the use of "intelligent design" here may well be accidental.

Contrast with this passage:

"Pepper, along with lawyers from the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, successfully represented in federal court eight families who challenged the Dover policy that included particular creation in the curriculum."

Here, my substitution is nonsensical, and thus the use of the term is not accidental.

The difference in the usage is a simple and fundamental as description versus naming. Before the Discovery Institute, "intelligent design" was one phrase among many used to describe multiple distinct formulations of the teleological argument. After the DI was formed, the term took on a second meaning: a name for that particular formulation of the teleological argument.

You then go on to state: "There is no source telling us that the term has different meanings in different periods for example." Eliot Sober (who may be the best philosopher of biology working right now) describes in his Evidence and Evolution how the design argument changed after the development of probability theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives three broad categories of arguments from design along with three modern variations (one of which is Intelligent Desgin). Given the citation lists from each of these sources, it looks like there has been significant research in this area in the peer-reviewed literature.

I'll close by highlighting a couple of comments left at Wilkins's blog post. Nick Matzke observed:

I think it is only mildly interesting [to] trace the conjunction of the two words “intelligent design” through history. It’s not really a “term” for most of its history, it’s just people talking about the Design Argument, and in such discussions they occasionally put together the words “intelligent” and “design”, usually more rarely than a variety of other combinations — “intelligent cause”, “beneficient design”, “creative design”, “designing mind”, or, mostly, just “design” or “Design.”

Wilkins, who also has a bit of a reputation as a philosopher of biology (but no wikipedia article yet), responded: "I agree that the mere phrase is not significant, but it does help to isolate some shared (or interestingly not-shared) ideas in the use of design arguments."

Garamond Lethe t c  11:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks once more User:Garamond Lethe for your continued willingness to discuss this tricky subject. Your questioning of this one remark of mine touches an issue I think is interesting. I have to say that there is a chance I understand you wrong. I was using the word accidental not just to mean that words were not chosen at random of course, like monkeys writing Shakespeare, but that there is in fact a tradition of using those exact words to express a particular concept. I was in fact writing with Matzke's blog remarks in mind, as well as the claims of people like Thaxton who say that the movement got the name from science or engineering, which I believe is not credible. So I am aware of Matzke's position on blogs and I believe/know it was highly influential in the history of this article, but not only is this not a strong source for a very distinctive position no other source has, but also far too much has been read in to Matzke's casual remarks. Anyway, this subject does of course keep coming up and is potentially an opening for dialogue; but what we need to do if we want to establish a better situation on this article is make sure people will not see us as playing minor word games. But I do think the question is relevant to what could make the article more stable and less controversial. As I believe I have asked you before: yes the intelligent design movement somehow changed the way the term "intelligent design" is used, but what is the best way to describe that change, and how why is this not allowed to be mentioned or at least admitted in the lead? My understanding is:
 * Most obviously, they publicized the term enormously. I have no secondary source for it, but I would say this is clearly the reason authors today use the term in other contexts, for historical argument from design.
 * Also very obviously, they connected the term to their movement, and the acts and theories of their movement, including of course their anti-evolutionary focus.
 * There is the whole thing about putting the words in glossaries and so on, which I think came from Matzke. Do we have a short word that describes that? Maybe we could say that they used it more as a "standard term" (but in that case, what does the glossary define it as?). And is it important as a distinct matter that does not come under the above two bullets?
 * Anyway, let me come back to basic stuff. It does not actually matter very much (with respect to the concerns that keep hitting this article) what the history of the term is. The key problem as far as I see it is what it means now, and it is clear enough that the term exists now and is used in more than one way now.
 * Hope this makes sense, and that I am answering the point you intended to make!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Garamond Lethe I wrote that quickly and missed a key point needed to link to your question, ie looking at your examples:
 * I think it is clear that in the first example sentence you gave, the term "intelligent design" is being referred to in a way which implies it is something which can be a characteristic of "the universe", for example evidence of an intelligence which caused the universe, and/or which influences it at all times. I guess you want to point also to the fact that the words are being used in a more literal sense here, right? So literally they are referring to evidence for a design and an intelligence. I believe this is still a common meaning, or in fact it is becoming more common. It is also not a very simple meaning to disconnect from the usages connected to the movement. It is obviously related (not accidental). So it can confuse readers if we say "intelligent design always means a scam pretending to be science" (which is what our talk pages confirm to be the intended effect of the present lead).
 * In the second example, the sentence is obviously referring to what I find most careful sources tend to call "intelligent design theory", which is the doctrine of the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design movement has its own article, but the theory redirects to intelligent design. During my busy period I asked several times if we should use the more clear term and the answers and rationales were not clear in my opinion. I understand between the lines that the main concern is once again having anything which raises any doubts at all about intelligent design being a "scam".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza and race
Just wanted this cleared up by someone in the know, did Cavalli-Sforze use the terms Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid when explaining races in the human variation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.32.194 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_history_and_geography_of_human_genes_Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza_map_genetic.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.46.240 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * More recent work by Cavalli-Sforza has taken a much more nuanced stance on race and genes. Here is a small summaryUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to look this up last night but never got around to it, and I am now not near a copy. My feeling is that Cavalli-Sforza would have been careful about such terminology even if he used them. What is more memorable, for example, is his reference to ancestral components (ie, implied ancestral groups without names but just numbers, now a common concept) rather than actual races etc. This has now become the more usual way for scientists to discuss racial ancestry.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just using google books:
 * http://books.google.be/books?id=8j5T1nsv43kC&pg=PA331
 * http://books.google.be/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&pg=PA187&dq=caucasoid#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20negroid%20mongoloid&f=false
 * So he did use the terms in older publications, but Maunus sounds right to me. What is the background to these questions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just that image I linked174.95.168.226 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He did use those terms, however...


 * The map is a favorite among race realists. The actual science is ignored. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not looked where it is being used, but I can kind of imagine the type of discussions. I think it is unavoidable that serious studies of human genetic variation are covered on Wikipedia, (although we tend to have difficulty with it), but I think an argument can be made that the "-oid" terms are not really in fashion in recent years, and that we should follow that trend. Can someone show me an article where this is really relevant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please
Andrew, you should appreciate that "what a fraudulent remark to make" and "Never ever a straight answer Dave?" are personal attacks contravening WP:NPA policy. I strongly recommend that you strike these remarks, and in future comment on proposals to improve the article without commenting on other editors. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning on edit-warring at Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ
You've been here long enough that you shouldn't need a template. I will remind you that Intelligent design is under discretionary sanctions, and that edit-warring can occur without reaching the three reverts mentioned in WP:3RR. Adding tags is not exempt from WP:3RR, not even when you've mentioned your concern on the talk page. Garamond Lethe t c  15:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Garamond Lethe, generally this type of tag would be left in while discussion takes place (and in your case this seems particularly appropriate because you have already refused to answer about some of them, explaining on your talk page that I deserved your condescension because of lack of competence). Your first edit summary showed no understanding of this Wikipedia norm, as explained in my edit summary. I can see with your edit warring that you really did realize this, and you really did want to be WP:POINTy, and so fine by me. I am not interested in that kind of thing myself, and for core content problems we have specialized noticeboards where the larger community can help make sure such questions are not ignored. It is hard to interpret your intentions in any positive way though. Why would removing the tags be so important to you unless you intend to continue avoiding responding to valid points in a condescending way ("condescending" being the word you yourself have used to describe your recent editing approach on the talk pages to me)? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Simpsons
There is currently a RFC discussion about the content with the sources that the user AmericanDad86 has been adding, and you have been requested to make a comment about this, since you have responded to this discussion that had happened recently. Blurred Lines 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

From the OED on Intelligent Design
"The term is now used chiefly with reference to a modified form of creation science which promotes teleological explanations while minimizing the use of religious terminology. Its proponents typically claim that many biological systems are too complex to have evolved incrementally by undirected mutation and natural selection, or show evidence of patterns which cannot be adequately explained by the action of natural processes." TomS TDotO (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burgundians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Probus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reason
Thanks for the invitation but you all seem to be doing a good job. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to help but I've fractured my wrist and one hand typing is slow. I like your version much better than Lonjers' version, which seems both showy and vague. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: harv links and haplogroups
I've gone through the history on the haplogroup J(-P209) page, but the problem there is actually less with RT's formatting than with the series of edits that added the information in the first place. With the others I've seen, it's mostly an annoying mechanical glitch where clicking on it does nothing and you have to scroll down and fish for the ref, but the J page is actually missing numerous full citations outright. My interest in this area is mostly transitory, and I was mainly trying to poke around for references on specific populations when I noticed the issue in the first place. I don't have the time, patience, or technical expertise to really do much about it now; the cleanup templates were mostly added as a general alert in the faint hope that someone else would be willing to deal with it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aristotelian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590060276 your edit] to Tongeren may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * emperor Julian met a delegation of Salian Franks who had recently settled in Toxandria the modern Campine region, to the north of Tongeren. They wanted peace but spoke "as if the

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burgundians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etzel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veneti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Leo Strauss
Leo Strauss's bio. awaits (I hope, your) improvement - the links to his inventing 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' have been tracked in that R-a-H Article. Mutual cross-references already exist between R-a-H and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law. Therefore I'd simply reiterate that Strauss's bio. is currently deficient. I should like someone authoritative to do stuff, in one neat go. From my reading of the Talk items, especially between Mikerussell and Clossius in Talk_4, I'd not want to try my hand at it for fear of my making a stuff-up. So, all I can say is - 'av a go ya mug ! Cheerio ! 121.127.210.125 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Andrew, in this edit summary and this comment you raised serious unfounded attacks against myself, which you reiterated in this comment while adding an attack on User:Myrvin. You're not a mind reader, and your attacks are false. No personal attacks is policy which you must abide by, and I strongly recommend that you strike these attacks. Do not repeat your battlefield behaviour. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Descriptions of sequences of editing events are not personal attacks in the sense intended by the NPA policy. And the editing events described can not be covered up by posting these types of "concerned" messages. It only makes them look even worse. I have addressed it on the relevant article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a description of edits to refer to an editor as "your human bot edit warrior", to say that another edit is "plain dumb" and that the editor is guilty of "poor editing". Nor to accuse an editor by saying that their "edits are all kneejerk edits", and their "posts never show any interest or knowledge" (twice), and that all they do on WP is"try to muscle people around". They are personal attacks, just like the ones against me last year. You really must stop this Andrew Lancaster. Myrvin (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts, and some facts are unfortunate. You can run away from bullies or you can say the truth. When the bullies finally take over Wikipedia I am sure they'll make a ceremony of kicking me out, but until then... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly find time to
have a captain's, or chuck a shufti or take a dekko at the Ashkenazi Jews talk page. We seem to have the chance of an edit-conflict-free zone there for once, and your expertise would be deeply appreciated. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your help requested
Haplogroup E-V38, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The current comments at Talk:Intelligent design suggest that assistance may be required to restore normal conditions to that talk page. You posted that "WP:V and WP:NOR are core content policies on Wikipedia" (diff), with the implication that the article conflicted with those policies. I asked three times that text contravening those policies be identified. After my third request, you again declined, and directed attention to other places on the talk page which are not relevant to the request (diff). While there is no obligation to answer a request, your reply raised the issue of whether I was working in good faith—my request is reasonable given that WP:V and WP:NOR were mentioned in a manner suggesting that those core policies were being violated. Please make a statement on the article talk saying that you do not believe that there is a WP:V or WP:NOR problem, or justify the assertion that there is such a problem.

Your reply was that I should (1) read the opening lines and (2) read the most recent @Mister Dub response. The first issue in the opening lines is "What excuse do we have apart from WP:SNYTH, for needing footnotes in our leads which contain large numbers of sources?". The link (SYNTH) is to WP:NOR so (1) tells me that you believe there is a WP:NOR problem, but you have declined to identify an example, and you have provided no explanation of how the unidentified text is a WP:NOR problem.

Re (2): Your response was that you asked whether there is a reason for the highly special footnoting, and that apparently there is no reason. Yet this reply provided an explanation, with more information here. Please take make more care in framing a response—your text clearly asserts that no reason was provided when perhaps you meant that you rejected the two explanations; if so, some reasons for that rejection would be desirable.

If you follow the links in the alert box at the top of this section you will find it difficult to see any clear statement defining what is reasonable on an article talk page. Nevertheless, please be aware that the advice recently provided by Charles to the effect that editors have been topic banned for certain unhelpful approaches to talk pages is correct. Consider the situation—Wikipedia is the primary source of information for people on the Internet, and anyone can edit and comment. It is obvious that a wide range of unhelpful behavior will result from that situation, and there must be mechanisms that prevent talk pages from being used in a fashion that consensus finds unhelpful. The mechanism for topics such as WP:FRINGE is WP:AE. Wikipedia is not a forum where discussions continue indefinitely—editors should work collaboratively to reach consensus. Any editors who are found at WP:AE to be persisting in an unreasonable fashion may be sanctioned.

You have performed 995 edits since 20 August 2013 at Talk:Intelligent design, and 36 of those edits have been in the last 11 days. What progress has resulted from those posts and the subsequent discussions? There must be some resolution that does not involve arguing indefinitely—WP:DR provides suggestions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's more than 3 edits per day. I have responded at length on your user page. But in short, there is no clear accusation, and the above has no clear correspondence to reality. I know that vague accusations, strange expressions of concern, and veiled threats about un-named people who got in trouble in the past, are normal for anyway who tries to work on Intelligent Design, going years back. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be a nuisance but I have had to post the officious alert again due to a technical problem (some background is here). I posted it a second time, then manually edited to replace the first notice with the second, and add this comment (it has to be done that way for reasons I don't fully understand). Also, I find split conversations hard so in my second edit I have added the section that you posted on my talk, and am responding below. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your threat on my talk page
As a formality, please note my reply to your post: Johnuniq, do you think any neutral observer would look at your activity on this article and describe it as "working collaboratively to reach consensus"? To me that sounds more like what I am doing. You closed your threat post to me by summarizing my editing record on the article and asking "What progress has resulted?" May I ask the same of your editing record?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment copied from User talk:Johnuniq. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not an un-involved editor, such as described in your warning. You are passionately involved, going back before I came to look at this article.
 * Your suggestion that my work on the article has led to no changes or useful discussions is contradicted (in my opinion) by the facts. In your favor, I understand that you are not really interested in the details.
 * Honestly, your recitation of recent talk page discussions is distorted beyond recognition. For example:
 * You say I refused to answer your demand for a specific example of a problem, but surely you know very well that:
 * Your questions were in answer to questions from me, and simply an attempt by you to deflect from the topic I raised in that section.
 * My questions were clearly intended to set ground for more detailed discussion if possible, by getting rationales on record as a starting point. This is a normal mode of moderating a difficult discussion.
 * My concerns about apparent original research, and everything about my mode of discussion, had all been clearly stated and explained. I try to work transparently.
 * While I have said the clusters of footnotes definitely look like OR, I also said that the style of the footnotes is hard to track and verify and discuss. I pointed out several times that difficultly in verification is itself a bad thing, and that in itself should be fixed even if there proves to be no OR. Even if the cluster footnotes are just sloppy accretions, not OR, it is odd that you are so aggressively opposed to this aim and notable that you are clearly angry about me asking you to explain why.
 * Note: I was also transparent about wanting to use a working assumption that there MIGHT be a reason that the apparent OR is a misunderstanding. There is nothing bad about that?
 * Despite what you say about me refusing to make concrete proposals (which I would be very much within my rights to do) I have in fact started a new section, starting with the sourcing of the first sentence, and trying to work as best as possible. So that accusation is objectively wrong.
 * I am not sure what accusation you are trying to make by linking to the post of Dave souza. I presume you are trying to say that I was somehow being dishonest because my question about the footnotes was really a sneaky way to specifically question the new opening sentence? But I do not see how that accusation works. I have noted also in the past that the poor footnote style, which makes verification difficult, also makes any discussion of any version of the lead difficult, including this new opening sentence. Again, I try to make my thinking are as transparent as possible.
 * Trying to discuss the format and style of the lead is an effort to fix one cause of repeated circular discussions. My reason for asking people for rationales is that I am trying to "work collaboratively to reach consensus" like you mention. This is absolutely normal, and others should do the same. Forcing all discussions towards straw polls does not achieve this, and you and the others who keep demanding this should stop, IMHO.
 * My responses follow.
 * The term "uninvolved" in the alert notice is nothing to do with the person placing the alert—it is standard practice for an involved party in a dispute to notify another party.
 * I was not suggesting that your work has led to no changes or useful discussions—my suggestion is that the benefits are not commensurate with the time that other editors have to spend.
 * My request "if there is some text in the article that contravenes those policies (V and NOR), please identify it" was not intended as a deflection. On the contrary, I hoped that discussing specifics would be far more profitable than generic discussions such as whether a detailed footnote might be a NOR violation.
 * I am blunt but I'm not angry. I repeated my request for specific text to be identified due to the claim in the section's opening paragraph that the footnotes violated WP:SYNTH—any SYNTH in the article must be rectified, and that claim seems the most important point. Further, if there is an assertion of a SYNTH problem, it is not satisfactory for the goal posts to be shifted when specifics are requested.
 * Re my linking the post of Dave souza: My comments should be taken at face value—above I mentioned your view that "apparently there is no reason" for certain footnoting, and I gave two links showing that reasons had been given. There is no suggestion of dishonesty—my concern is that discussions seldom make progress when there is little engagement with what has occurred. If two reasons for footnotes have been offered, those reasons can be disputed, but it is dismissive to say that there is no special reason.
 * My editing record at Intelligent design is woeful, however I am interested in the topic and in supporting the good editors who maintain that and related pages. Discussions based on very generic objections tend to be endless, and that can be very disruptive for the editors who want to be engaged yet who cannot devote several hours each week for one talk page.
 * I have said about all that I think can be said here. The "veiled threats about un-named people" cannot really be explained because it is not appropriate to point to individual cases. However, rather than making a veiled threat, I am actually trying to avoid the tedium of engaging in a WP:AE request—they can be pretty ugly and a huge waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing in a more polite tone but please forgive me for stepping back and remembering that you are the same guy who has been posting on that talk page telling people not to respond to me right? And now you are saying "all that trouble, why not give up?" You see how that could be seen as a striking pattern? I could go on with more analysis of the pattern, if called upon.
 * Back to more interesting things, I find your attempt to criticize my work very confused still, so not really very helpful in any practical way. As we agree, you are not following it closely. I have said to you before, and it remains true, that if you had time to REALLY spend I would be interested in your opinion. But how interesting is it to hear someone criticize you who has only a vague impression of what you have been saying and doing?
 * Whatever your intentions, I honestly do think that your gate-keeper/enforcer approach in this article is badly executed and badly conceived. ID, like other subjects, is a difficult subject. So what? Why must we give up on it?
 * Actually, I believe that as the article as evolved over time, the habits of the past, presumably developed in reaction to pseudoscience apologists (which is what your scary link was about), have started to ossify and worsen the article. I believe that such ossification will become a major priority problem on Wikipedia as it gets older. Some of the old approaches which might have been accepted grudgingly in the past (you should actually read those links), are increasingly going to be defined as the problem, not the solution. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Kekoolani
Hello, you were involve a past similiar discussion Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115, can you give an opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I don't think it will violate Canvassing since you fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laws of nature. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you improve another sentence re Thomas More
On November 17th 2014, you made an excellent edit to the Campaign against the Reformation section of Thomas More, for which I've just thanked you. I wonder could you perhaps have a go at trying to fix (or if necessary delete) the following sentence in the same section:

"It seems unlikely that modern Catholics, Protestants, and others could ever easily agree on how many eventually died in Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere as an arguable result of the English Reformation that More was unsuccessfully trying to prevent, and whether or not this cost could be justified by arguable offsetting benefits of defending a Catholic theocracy."

(Note: the words "of defending a Catholic theocracy" were added to that sentence in the anonymous edit immediately preceding your own. I don't want to make any changes myself, partly because I'm trying to stay away from editing Wikipedia, and partly because, following a long and exhausting row over the section's last two paragraphs (which I perhaps foolishly helped to create), I no longer trust my own judgment in this particular area).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that the third last paragraph of that section is incorrect to speak of "John Tewkesbury, a London leather-seller found guilty by More" since I would have thought he was found guilty by a court or jury or judge or magistrate rather than by the Lord Chancellor. If so, somebody might usefully re-phrase that. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Permission to move?
At Talk:DSwhatever, we've started talking about a different idea than the thread heading suggests. Please break out this segment, from just after your initial support, or give me permission to do so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Help untangling knot requested
Andrew, I seek your permission to truncate and reorganize our discussion like this demo (which I already self reverted). No one is going to actually notice the phrase I propose from either of us, buried as they are far below the generalized section heading, and if they do, odds are they might not realize we're talking about two entirely different proposals. (I didn't figure that out until this morning.)

Do you think my reorganization and section headings might better garner input from others? If so, please restore my demo edit, or give me permission to do so, or if you have a better way please show me a demo.

Also, if you think my way is a reasonable statement of the proposals, it suffers from fact that I deleted the more general discussion containing persuasive arguments in favor of your usage guideline proposal. I didn't mean to imply they are useless, only that you might wish to collect, organize, and condense them under a "discussion" section, below the codified proposal. Fine by me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PS, the only other ed whose comments would be affected are Roxy, whom I have asked to join us here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you changing things around to aid clarity and while doing so moving, changing or removing altogether, any comments I made during our discussions. Kind of you to ask. I am paying attention to discussions too. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropped [ in the Leo Strauss article
A recent edit of yours lost a [ in the Leo Strauss article. I fixed this already, but I thought I would give you a bump to preview your edits for this kind of thing. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teleological argument, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prime mover. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews
I'd greatly appreciate your feedback on the Ashkenazi Jews talk page regarding the genetics. Since you're the only one who has an understanding of their genetics, I was hoping to hear your stance on the issue. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Suevi/Suavi
There is no evidence whatsoever of the language spoken by the Suevi (later Suabi). The section deals with etymology and Grimm was one of the foremost etymologists of the period. The reference to Adam of Bremen was obviously not etymological in nature - perhaps better served then in ethnic character of Suevi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneliotacito (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be using two Wikipedia IDs with similar names? A bit confusing. We should discuss on the article talk page, not my talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Germanic Peoples
Not only did a Columbia University professor make the claim that Teutons may have spoken a Celtic language, but several Cambridge University professors in (Keane, A.H., Hingston Quiggon, and A.C Haddon. Man: Past and Present. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) also seem to believe similarly. In Celtic Studies by W.K. Sullivan, he elaborates extensively on the glossarial affinities between the Lito-Slavonian, Celtic, and the Teutonic languages. Please do some research before outright omitting an inclusion with academic substantiation; check the publisher as well. If this was from Joe's Books or some other unknown book publisher, I can understand contesting it. However, when upper-tier scholars make such claims in widely respected publications, it merits more attention than your passing dismissal and editorial omission. Thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Cawley, et.al.
Thank you for your information concerning Medlands. It is clear further dialogue with Victar would be a waste of my time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

MedLands
Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could use your help on Talk:John_the_Fearless again. Victar (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned your name
Hi there. I hope you are good and kicking. I have mentioned your name in [| an appeal case] Bests Aigest (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Impressive genealogical work
After reviewing your website, it appears you've conducted some thorough and admirable research into genealogy. My wife and I also dabble in this but not to the extent you've obviously taken it. Are you also a linguist as I see that you have some proficiency in several languages --- perhaps related to your study of Haplogroups and language families I presume? --Obenritter (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Lancashire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)