User talk:Bridgettttttte/Archive 2

First Archive
I'd like to start this page clean again and archive everything above. Is there an easy way to do that? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 23:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep :-)


 * See box at top; you can cut/paste things to that archive page.


 * Ask again if you need any more help. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First Sandbox
Could someone please make me a sandbox? I did read, but the file path looks like UNIX. I'm too young to know UNIX, LOL, so I might make a dirty cat box if I try! Bridgettttttte babblepoop 11:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:Bridgettttttte/sandbox ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All a sandbox is is a blank page ... on that blank page, you can try adding things, deleting things, table code, colours, etc ... I created a blank page inside your userspace ... just click User:Bridgettttttte/sandbox, and edit to your heart's content! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are the tools to set this equation?
How do I write these 2 equations in a wiki compatible form; does wiki formating survive our PDF rendering to a printer? Math guy!

KEY: division /, multiplication *, exponential ^, nested grouping, matrix [] , equals =

dict=Partition[Flatten[Tuples[Reverse[IdentityMatrix[alpha]],word]],(alpha*word)]

PseudoInverse[dict]=((Transpose[dict])*((alpha)^-(word -1)))-((word - 1)/(alpha^word)/word)

Bridgettttttte babblepoop 11:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this what you want? WP:MATH? --Tyw7 (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)


 * You should indeed use math - e.g. $$E = mc^2 \,\!$$ produces;

$$E = mc^2 \,\!$$


 * If you download as a PDF through the link to do so, on the left (example) - which uses Special:Book - then that should render OK, depending on your printer, etc. Alternatively, you can use the link to the 'printable version' and print from there (example).  Chzz  ► 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

$$ dict=Partition[Flatten[Tuples[Reverse[IdentityMatrix[alpha]],word]],(alpha*word)] $$


 * oops, this doesn't work because it is computer code, not straight math:

$$ dict=Partition[Flatten[Tuples[Reverse[IdentityMatrix[alpha]],word]],(alpha*word)] $$


 * I wonder if there is freeware somewhere that understands this code ??? But commands like "Flatten" probably don't set like a math text book. So, I probably stay in code, where such terms are defined. That will make a giant mess of definitions, unreadable by anyone who does not program. Hummm, nice project for a college math student, but not me.  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 13:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comparison of TeX editors ? (Also, BTW, I replied on User talk:Chzz  Chzz  ► 12:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your code ((Transpose[dict])*((alpha)^-(word -1)))-((word - 1)/(alpha^word)/word) seems to mean (replacing dict with d and word with w for brevity) $$d^{\mathrm{T}}\alpha^{-(w-1)}-\frac{\frac{w-1}{\alpha^w}}{w}$$. I don't know what most of the functions in your first example are supposed to do, so I can't really interpret that one. But yes, if you want to typeset mathematics properly (on Wikipedia or elsewhere), you should learn some variety of TeX. Algebraist 12:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now copying parts of this to sandbox to set equation as best I can.  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Orneriness
Mathematicians have been known to publish the solution to significant problems in very strange places. If I find a fellow wikipedia editor who is obviously using his / her real name, and I can confirm the equation to be true, may I grab the equation from a discussion page on the subject and drop it into that person's biography? I might post this question several times under unless someone helps by giving a very definitive wiki rule for editing. Seems like a grey area to me. Bridgettttttte babblepoop 13:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If by biography you mean the person's Wikipedia article, no. It would be original research because it hadn't previously been published. Does that answer your question? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)


 * If you mean, can you take it from a Wikipedia discussion page and put it in an article - then no.


 * Wikipedia articles only contain facts that have been published in reliable sources. A Wikipedia discussion page is not a reliable source (in the same way that blogs and other 'user-generated content' are not) - the discussion pages do not have 'editorial control' or a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'.


 * It would have to be published elsewhere, before we could use it.


 * Applicable policies/guides include WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:V  Chzz  ► 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, that makes sense. Otherwise, the encyclopedia might turn into a big chat session!  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 09:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What, pray tell, is so wrong with a big chat session? :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To many Whale stories? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 07:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL ... "what?" [[File:Michael Westbrook.jpg]] MichaelWestbrook (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
...now archived, in User talk:Chzz/Archive_23.  Chzz  ► 21:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My Identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_committed_identity Bridgettttttte babblepoop 03:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Me oops - I found a tool here: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Peter+cohen&lang=en&wiki=wikinews with graphics that I wanted, and this section just appeared. IDK what I did. I wanted those graphs, not some identity thing Bridgettttttte babblepoop 01:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What graphics are you looking for? I don't see any graphics on that link.... that's the toolserver.  D u s t i *poke* 02:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell us what you exactly need, and when you do, either when you reply to Dusti|Dusti, or in general, feel free to replace the helpme block in your userspace, and we will be able to help you, or you can join us in our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help with the webclient or directly with #wikipedia-en-help Thanks! -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's close the help me. I did cite the wrong hyperlink, above, and it does indeed have no graphics.  I was on a user page, which I can't find.  This guy had a pie chart that summarized where he had been editing, e.g., a segment for articles, discussion, etc.  I usually stay on discussion pages because I still fear messing up references by inserting anything with a reference. So, I would have a large segment for "discussion", which might be unusual and help characterize me to other editors when I do try to edit in actual articles. Thanks  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 10:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your own edit stats are here. I wouldn't worry too much about the percentages; look at my own, which is over 40% to user talks, because I mostly help users.


 * It's good to edit at least some articles though. Don't be worried about references; it's really quite easy. Just put the ref details in-between &lt;ref> and &lt;/ref>, and that will do fine.


 * Whatever you put in-between the &lt;ref> and the &lt;/ref> will appear automatically in the references section.

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.


 * I've just made a test page for you, with that exact text; try it out; add another referenced fact, or something. See User:Bridgettttttte/reftest.  Chzz  ► 22:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chzz. I've got a lot to learn. This might take a while! Learning curve. BTW, another editor helped me with equations.  He might have figured out a way around writing in TeX. If u r interested, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Displaying_a_formula#MS_Word_Equation_Editor.3F  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Help ur adopted daughter get unlost
 Chzz  ► 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Youvan's Apologetics


A tag has been placed on Youvan's Apologetics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Teapot  george Talk  15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Youvan's Apologetics


A tag has been placed on Youvan's Apologetics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Teapot  george Talk  16:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

'''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapotgeorge, top banner reads: "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." Other editors can determine for themselves if that is an obvious POV to attack someone like Youvan in favor of someone like Dawkings. I thought we wanted wikipedia to be a place for people to find reliable information. TeaPot is on the verge of censorship and defamation. Youvan is a living person.''' Bridgettttttte babblepoop 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying... JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies but as I said in my edit summary, with a quick reading of the article it did indeed appear to be nonsense. I see now that it has been deleted as a copyright infringement. Please assume good faith I am not out to attack, censor or defame anyone either!!! Kind regards  Teapot  george Talk  16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note that No personal attacks states.. "Do not make personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopaedia." Kind Regards.  Teapot  george Talk  18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that either the "nonsense" or "advertising" tags were appropriate; but I have deleted the article because it was a copyright violation - a direct copy from Youvan's website. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere - see Copy-paste - unless a formal copyright release has been made, as described at WP:Copyrights. Assertion of permission to reproduce is not enough.
 * I do not advise you to organise a copyright release, though, because the article is unsuitable for other reasons, particularly our policy of publishing WP:No original research. An article about Youvan and his views might be appropriate, if "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" can be cited to establish notability, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish extended copies of his writings. They might be acceptable to our sister site Wikisource - I don't know their inclusion policies. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see he has an article at Douglas Youvan. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Youvan's website reads that the contents are released to the public domain. You might be reading a cached copy. Refresh directly from www.youvan.org. I don't want an edit war. I am a newbie with no vested interests. If this is going to turn into a war, I will just go away. There are lots of blue words that could be linked into the article - why not just help instead of delete? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see on the home page that the site is PD - apologies, I had only looked at the source page. Very well, I will restore it, but I will also nominate it at Articles for deletion, which will start a debate lasting seven days, to which you will be welcome to contribute. The answer to your question "Why delete?" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only remains one by having clear policies about what to include, one of which is WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." A reliable source, for this purpose, means one with some independent editorial control, so prior publication on Youvan's website is not enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if a newspaper picks up this deletion, it becomes newsworthy, and then the article is publishable? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a case of being newsworthy, the question is whether these ideas have attracted independent comment. WP:NOR again: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Read the whole of WP:NOR to understand what it's getting at. We wouldn't in any case quote someone's work in extenso like this - what an encyclopedia does is summarise material which has already been published elsewhere. See also WP:NOTLINK #3 and WP:NOTSOAPBOX #1 and 2 - all part of the rather long list of What Wikipedia is not, by which we try to remain an encyclopedia. I would think the right treatment of this is a mention in Youvan's article, with a link to that page of his website. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Youvan's Apologetics for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Youvan's Apologetics, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * John: I don't see how the primary website for Youvan's biography could be considered unreliable. It’s not-for-profit; the biography (in progress) can be freely downloaded. I know Youvan’s questions are irritating to most people. That is expected in polemics.  In any debate over deletion, do you really believe that our editors can free themselves of faith-based POV’s? Youvan's questions could cause hate and anger in some editors.  Very few people are open to a change of faith and they will find any reason they can to delete Youvan’s Apologetics.  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have another question: If a journal or newspaper picks up this deletion, or deletion debate, and publishes Youvan's questions in apologetics, does that somehow make this article reliable? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to put "helpme" each time, I am watching this page. Answer coming soon, but it may be an hour or so, real life is intruding... JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got hacked - got to my child's computer but not this one. Expert told me to "go pull ISP records on sockets". You guys debate this - I'm off here. bye Bridgettttttte babblepoop 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Youvan's website is reliable in that it reproduces his views accurately, but that's not the point: it's a self-published source and so not independent. Anyone can set up a website and propound his views on it; if he could use that as a basis for copying them into Wikipedia, we would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a notice-board, soap-box or discussion forum.

No, it's not a case of being newsworthy, the question is whether these ideas have attracted independent comment. WP:NOR again: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Read the whole of WP:NOR to understand what it's getting at. In fact, it would help you to read all our three, somewhat interlinked, key content policies:
 * WP:Verifiability
 * WP:No original research
 * WP:Neutral point of view

We wouldn't in any case reproduce someone's work in extenso like this - what an encyclopedia does is summarise material which has already been published elsewhere. See also WP:NOTLINK #3 and WP:NOTSOAPBOX #1 and 2 - all part of the rather long list of What Wikipedia is not, by which we try to remain an encyclopedia.

I would think the right way for Wikipedia to treat this is with a mention in Youvan's article, with a link to that page of his website, and I have added that here.

One of Wikipedia's most important guidelines for contributors is Assume good faith. Please do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you has a political or religious motivation. Exactly the same no original research arguments would be applied to someone trying to copy into Wikipedia extended passages from Richard Dawkins' website. The deletion debate will be conducted in terms of Wikipedia's policies. It is possible that some contributors may be unable to "free themselves of faith-based POV’s" and may base opinions on whether they agree or disagree with the content, but the uninvolved administrator who closes the debate will discount any such opinions. Note that although participants in the debate will write Keep or Delete, this is not a count of heads - the administrator will decide which side makes the better case in terms of policies. The question is not, is the article right? wrong? irritating? upsetting? but is it original research in terms of WP:NOR? If so, whatever its POV, it has no place in Wikipedia.

And no, before you say it, this is not censorship, the First Amendment does not require Wikipedia to give a platform to all comers - see WP:Free Speech.

I hope you manage to get un-hacked soon. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youvan's Apologetics. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Teapot  george Talk  19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I will take you to be a "ruling authority", and submit to your governance:

Romans 13 (New International Version)

Submission to Governing Authorities 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Thank you Bridgettttttte babblepoop 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I see that Youvan has not commented on authority in his list of just about everything else:

1.Who coded the genetic code?

2.Do we live in a largely secular world explained by a Darwin-Hawking tautology?

3.As man is created in God's image - does that imply God has some sexual functionality?

4.Do people assume there is nothing after death because they can remember nothing before birth?

5.Hypothetically, if Darwin and Hitler were in a debate for President of the USA, what would you ask?

6.Given Darwinism is based on faith, how can it be taught in school where church & state are seperated?

7.Are the "time-like" and "space-like" areas of the Einstein's space-time continuum equivalent to P and NP?

8.Does the original Hebrew for "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram" imply the creation of time, itself?

9.Why do people make a game out of destroying each other?

10.Can you forgive faster than the Amish?

11.Do you ponder: "Buddha and Christ, would you have us choose between Nothingness and Love, respectively?"

12.Do "Things go better..." after death?

13.Does believing Genesis literally and effectively discredit my Ph.D. in Biophysics?

14.How many born again university professors do you know?

15.Do you think much about staying 'fit' so your offspring will survive to reproduce?

16.What do atheists gain when they experience suffering?

17.If God had a dog, how would he keep him from wandering away?

18.Do you change your behavior towards a stranger in public when you notice they are wearing a Christian cross?

19.Have you ever wondered whether our brain is a computer with a transmitter and receiver tuned to God?

20.Do you agree with Søren Kierkegaard that Christianity seems to be offensive before it can be understood?

21.Is the hatred directed at Israel really a hatred of God?

22.We came from a Big Bang, and you should kill your enemies so your children survive?

23.What's your evidence that the Christian God is lovelike while the Muslim one is not?

24.What's worse for kids: TV, Darwin, or the Big Bang?

25.Can you name a False Prophet?

26.Will the day come when lies fill the world, and no child born thereafter can discern right from wrong?

27.Did Adam and Eve enjoy their sexuality before the Fall?

28.Does the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution explain the origin of mathematics and music?

29.Does Hawking really believe that a Supreme Being lives in black holes and emits particles named after him?

30.Is Hawking the current God of the scientific secularists?

31.After inventing P vs NP for our pleasure, did God leave us in physical and mathematical NP?

32.Having descended from Isaac, must we now battle the sons of Ishmael to complete the Great Commission?

33.Does the information content of a cell instantaneously eliminated of its DNA exceed the information content of its DNA?

34.If some knowledge is outside of man’s ability to know, then who would know?

35.Is a person defined more by the questions they ask, or the answers they provide?

36.How could a physicist prove that the problem he was studying had no underlying and/or solvable mathematics?

37.If you were Adam, and God was having you name the animals, what would you call a horse?

38.Does acceptance of Darwin somehow promote abortion, in vitro fertilization, stem cell therapy and/or eugenics?

39.Sometime in the future, will valid scientific challenges to Darwinism be considered "hate speech"?

40.Has Dysgenics now taken the form that the rich are superior to the poor?

41.Could we be on the verge of genetic engineering experiments wherein human pain and suffering do not matter?

42.Were boys sodomized by Priests systematically told they were partaking in a Holy act?

43.Is there an analogy between St. Peter and the Karolinska?

44.Can Spiritual Warfare arise against a person writing in support of literal Creation?

45.Why is the Physicist and Cosmologist, P.C.W. Davies, being attacked over issues of faith?

46.In church, why do we say we are "the people of God", when we really do not know God's will?

47.With a Venn Diagram, can you see God as the superset, mankind as a circled subset, and Salvation as a break in the circle around man?

48.Do religious writings make you hate the writer or the religion or God?

49.Do human secularists really believe that the elimination of religions would stop wars?

50.What is the difference between a person that was a Believer from childhood and a person Born Again at an old age?

51.Is it possible to believe in Christ but find Satan to be fiction?

52.What is the lie behind Darwinian Evolution and The Big Bang that causes people to be blind to God's Creation and Procreation?

53.How do you explain the simplest and most beautiful things about our world to children without invoking God?

54.Can any advocate of The Big Bang explain how a "singularity" creates space, time, energy, and matter?

55.Do some churches delete literal Creation from their doctrine to increase membership and tithings?

56.Is the forward direction of the "arrow of time" defined only by the first three words of the Bible?

57.Was Einstein's vision of a one dimensional space-time with four variables (x,y,z, -t) inspired by God?

58.Why did God assign a "minus time" variable to space-time and have the space dimensions assigned positive?

59.Without God's Word, are we left with the Boltzmann H-theorem as the best scientific guess as to why time moves forward?

60.Why did God put something as simple as the Lorentz factor into Relativity?

61.After Heisenberg, why did Einstein turn towards dice (and a non-existent unified field theory) instead of God?

62.When was the population of the Earth 100% Christian?

63.When was the population of the Earth 100% Jewish?

64.If a non-Believer partially denies the touch of the Holy Spirit, will they be perceived as having a psychiatric disorder?

65.Are seditious comments the result of having no personal God (Jesus Christ) in whom one yields their vengeance?

66.Do human secularists and Christians agree that "all men are Created equally"?

67.In the conversions of the Latin Vulgate into the KJV and then into the NIV, did "brother" become "brethren"?

68.In your family life, do you tell "white lies" to make family relationships more peaceful?

69.In your business life, do you have to lie to make products sell better?

70.Would an "Institute for NP Processes in Biology" degenerate into faith arguments or help develop new drugs and therapies?

71.Akin to the nonsolvable 3-body problem or the quantum mechanics on chemical bonds, can NP processes be modeled as perturbation of P processes?

72.Can a Prigogine Dissipative Structure store information like a cell stores DNA?

73.Are there DNA-based limitations to the lifetime of the biosphere?

74.Would a discrete mathematician have fun playing board games or would it seem like more work?

75.In terms of Darwinian Sociology, is financial wealth now the measure of fitness?

76.If Darwinian Evolution was false, would any known technology fail?

77.Is the creation of sentience a second NP process following the creation of life?

78.Do scientist really believe they become immortal and god-like when they win a Nobel Prize?

79.Did James Hutton give Darwin "enough time" through Gradualism solely to attack Creation?

80.Before 1900 geologists spoke of pre-and post-flood eras as being fact, so what changed?

81.In opposition to Creation, why do geologist use inexact science to explain crystalline minerals, coal, oil, etc.?

82.Is "Dawkins" a popular and effective name because of a genetic algorithm of "Darwin" and "Hawking"?

83.Do scientists believe that the isotopic preference of RuBisCO is unchanged over time simply to support radiocarbon dating?

84.Has entertainment replaced education?

85.Does loss of faith in God and science result in illicit drug usage?

86.Do offensive questions written by a Believer keep you from moving closer to Christ?

87.Has scientific data been selectively "mined" to support Darwinism and Evolution?

88.Did God create planets and quasars to entertain man?

89.Isn't the Strong Anthropic Principle easier to believe than the Darwin-Hawking tautology?

90.How much faith does it take to go from red-shifts and 4K to a geodesic singularity?

91.Why did God balance photosynthesis and combustion with a red-shift of absorbed and emitted light?

92.What's' worse: Pushing Dawkins', "The God Delusion", or pushing drugs?

93.After you interpret Genesis 1-2 as fiction, how can you read the Ten Commandments as God's literal Word?

94.Will a "Jesus Ministry" fail after Creation is discarded by a church as a myth?

95.Was there a time when leading university professors were Christians?

96.Do you feel the Holy Spirit strongest when you are laying hands on a person during a Faith healing?

97.Could the reaction to an unfair inheritance 100 years ago continue to cause a family demonization?

99.What would happen if NASA placed a china teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars?

100.Given the separation of Church and State, how can NASA promote programs with atheist-based exo-biology?

101.Why doesn't NASA promote its programs based on imaging the beauty of God's Creation?

102.Given Romans 13, as of 2010, has God given Wikipedia the authority to establish "consensus truth"?

103.Did the 1960-ish lies that destroyed the nuclear family also cause massive demonization?

104.Is the knowledge and truth you leave behind decay quickly in your dead body?

105.Does the world require more self-discipline of us than before 911?

106.What if Adam and Eve had simultaneously eaten of both tress?

107.What would you be if there were no God?

108.What would you be without Jesus?

109.Was St. Jerome inspired by God while compiling the Latin Vulgate?

110.Is there any other explanation for languages other than the fall of the Tower of Babel?

111.When a prophet speaks, do you listen?112.Do you appreciate your unique design?

113.Pun and spelling intended: Is the mathematical basis of evolution and bang theory holey?

114.Did the perfect genomes of Adam and Eve overcome the deleterious effects of inbreeding?

115.Why do churches conduct Bible Study out of any other book but the Holy Bible?

116.Why do some individual churches claim to have a speciality, such as in "personal relationships?

117.What does Spiritual Warfare mean to you?

118.Have you ever taken classes in Spiritual Warfare?

119.Were there two creations of man by God (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7)?

120.Does John 14:13-14 imply that your prayers to be rich will be answered?

121.Will there be exactly 144,000 Israelis remaining after a nuclear attack?

122.Why does the KKK think the mark of Cain is Black skin rather than blue eyes?

123.Is Akiane's portrait of Eve the correct racial composition?

124.Is Wikipedia's ban on an open live hyperlink from this website sedition of the first amendment?

125.Is the Patriot Act anti-Patriotic?

126.Did Wikipedia arise through the then Department of Homeland Defense?

127.Did Jesus ever speak of personal liberty or freedom of speech?

128.Was freedom of speech simply a response to having the doctrine of a church reviewed by a government?

129.Is it illegal for churches to unite to form a new government?

130.Who, after death, would pick physical darkness over brilliant light?

131.Do we all get into Heaven freely by a big and unrevealed surprise analogous to the difference between the Old and New Testament?

132.Why are Wikipedia articles usually ranked first on any search of anything?

133.Is the love for control of information equivalent to the love of money?

134.Can God call you closer and bring about better works by causing you to suffer physical pain?

135.Why were Thomas Jukes and Francis Crick hell-bent on running Creationists out of California schools?

136.Why did Francis Crick want to hide the pattern he began to see in the Genetic Code?

137.Are my / Youvan's Four Postulates consistent with Biblical Creation as per Genesis 1-2?

138.Did God use a solution to The Travelling Problem (TSP) in Creation?

139.Is Russell's teapot delusional or does it at least entertain the idea of God?

140.Will the Lord burn me as a brilliant fire to spread his news?

141.What if NP problems are relatively simple compared to mathematics we can not even state?

142.Does the Lord's Prayer bother you?

143.Is it Satan or our free will which stops us from focusing entirely on Eternity?

144.Would you be able to converse with someone whose Faith was perfect?

145.Can knowledge or truth be engineered into the unwritten assumption of a polemic question?

146.Are you strong enough to face demons or do the people around you repent?

147.Is Faith real, and religion is something that happens in buildings?

148.What does it say of Science when it is closed to theories on the origin of life and mankind?

149.How much information is required to set the concentrations of thousands of interacting chemicals in a cell?

150.After setting chemical concentrations in a cell, how does dispersive kinetics maintain a living equilibrium?

151.Is dispersive kinetics more difficult to solve than the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)?

152.How could anyone believe, with certainty, that an open thermodynamic system can generate and store information?

153.Is Jupiter's Red Spot alive?

154.Is the solar-geo-bio-sphere one living organism that uses elements heavier than Helium from earlier stellar evolution?

155.Does the Strong Anthropic Principle explain why you evolved to read this question despite astronomical improbabilities for our existence?

156.Are most US Presidents "Young Earth Creationists" who believed Genesis 1-2, literally?

157.10,000 years after Creation and 1,900 years after Christ, why did people begin to believe that Young Earth Creationists were stupid?

158.When you awake and you have thoughts away from Him, do you go back to sleep until you get it right?

159.Are you now part of Acts 29, but you are afraid to speak out for fear of martyrdom? Bridgettttttte babblepoop 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bridgettttttte babblepoop 21:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Youvan's Apologetics, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. DC  T • C   21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Delete Youvan's Apologetics
Help me to end this dispute. I just deleted as much of the article as I know how. Bridgettttttte babblepoop 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DC#article_deleted_by_editor_that_created_article Bridgettttttte babblepoop 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's not a dispute, this is the normal way we do business here; this is extremely good-tempered compared to some discussions. The article has been restored, because we don't delete things in the middle of a deletion debate. A suggestion has been made there that we keep the title as a "redirect" to the section in Youvan's article whih I have inserted about his apologetics, so anyone who clicks on it will get taken there; and that, in turn, has a link to the web site. If you are agreeable to that, it seems to me a good solution, and I will back up the proposal at the deletion debate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! I want out of this mess. Call it a  bad case of editing. Bridgettttttte babblepoop 21:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a mess, absolutely don't worry, Wikipedia works mostly by a series of disagreements working their way out to a compromise like this. This was much better-tempered than many. We are so keen to get people to join in that we do not do a very good job of explaining the rules in advance, so that people have to learn by making mistakes - the best way to learn, anyway.
 * I have made the redirect, so that now if you click on Youvan's Apologetics you are taken to the brief paragraph about them I inserted into his article, and a link goes on from there to his web-site where the interested enquirer can read them all. I have checked with the two users who had voted "delete"; if either of them objects the debate will have to continue, but I doubt it.
 * I was amused by your reference to Authority, because newcomers often view Wikipedia's administrators as Authority, but actually our job is largely janitorial and our emblem is a mop. We have no more influence on content disputes than any other editor - any controversial deletion is decided by a debate like the one I started here.
 * I have one request - would you delete, or allow me to delete, the list of questions from above here on your talk page? I know you put them there to illustrate your point about Authority, but having them there in full has a slight air of doing an end-run around the deletion process in order to keep them in Wikipedia.
 * When I have time, I look forward to going back to Youvan's web-site and reading them all.
 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * John, yes please proceed. Also, maybe we could archive this page after you mop up. Thanks  Bridgettttttte babblepoop 00:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)