User talk:Hans-Friedrich Tamke

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
 * If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 23:52, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Creation Science
Could you please discuss on the talk page of Creation Science the edit you keep making to that article. Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, please discuss on the talk pages of the various creationism-related articles the adjectival endings you keep adding. JoshuaZ 00:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

nonsense
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 10:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC

Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. WLU 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary
The English adjective "creationary" derives from and refers back to the noun "creation", just as the morphologically parallel adjective "evolutionary" derives from and refers back to the noun "evolution". For all fair-minded individuals, it is no more "controversial", "ugly", "unnecessary", or "verboten" to use the adjective "creationary" than it is to use the parallel adjective "evolutionary". If evolutionary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of evolution) insist on forbidding creationary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of creation) from using the adjective "creationary", then, to be consistent, they ought also to forbid themselves the use of the parallel adjective "evolutionary" and insist that it be deleted from all Wikipedia articles. What's good for the evolutionary goose is good for the creationary gander. And what's good for the creationary goose is also good for the evolutionary gander.

creation/evolution (nouns) creational/evolutional (adjectives) creationary/evolutionary (adjectives) creationism/evolutionism (nouns) creationist/evolutionist (nouns) creationistic/evolutionistic (adjectives) Hans-Friedrich Tamke 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutley not. What is linguistically perfect is not always how people write. Phrases such as "Creation Science" are common and reasonably form compound noun phrases which we should use. The term "creationary science" returns some 400 or so google hits as opposed to 1.5 million with "creation science." heck the word "creationary" returns less than 20,000 hits.  And you won't find many uses of "evolutionary" anyways which is also an ugly and uncommon word. JoshuaZ 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JoshuaZ. In some instances (such as "evolution vs creationism") the grammatical imbalance is problematic, in this case the language reflects the terminology both sides use most often.  "Creation science" has evolved into something more specific (and specifically associated with Morris) than "creationary science" (which presumably would encompass 19th-century creation-oriented science, etc.).  As a side note, "evolutionary" may be ugly, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon, particularly when paired with "biology," "biologist," or "theory."--ragesoss 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, yes, more common than "creationary" certainly and actually has standard uses. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Google search results:

"evolutionary" = about 107,000,000 -- "creationary" = about 17,300 "evolutionary science" = about 173,000 -- "creationary science" = about 463 "evolutionary sciences" = about 20,700 -- "creationary sciences" = about 4 "evolutionary scientist" = about 17,300 -- "creationary scientist" = about 200 "evolutionary scientists" = about 68,600 -- "creationary scientists" = about 282 "evolutionary biology" = about 17,000,000 -- "creationary biology" = about 67 "evolutionary biologist" = about 373,000 -- "creationary biologist" = about 25 "evolutionary biologists" = about 403,000 -- "creationary biologists" = about 18 "evolutionary evidence" = about 20,400 -- "creationary evidence" = about 71 "evolutionary evidences" = about 333 -- "creationary evidences" = 2 "evolutionary theory" = about 4,560,000 -- "creationary theory" = about 202 "evolutionary theories" = about 284,000 -- "creationary theories" = about 39 "evolutionary theorist" = about 29,400 -- "creationary theorist" = about 34 "evolutionary theorists" = about 52,800 -- "creationary theorists" = about 14 "evolutionary theorizing" = about 22,200 -- "creationary theorizing" = 2 "evolutionary theorising" = about 369 -- "creationary theorising" = 1 "evolutionary theoretician" = about 279 -- "creationary theoretician" = 0 "evolutionary theoreticians" = about 74 -- "creationary theoreticians" = 0 "evolutionary thought" = about 182,000 -- "creationary thought" = about 39 "evolutionary thoughts" = about 502 -- "creationary thoughts" = about 35 "evolutionary thinker" = about 609 -- "creationary thinker" = about 5 "evolutionary thinkers" = about 9,880 -- "creationary thinkers" = about 5 "evolutionary thinking" = about 102,000 -- "creationary thinking" = about 72 "evolutionary agenda" = about 588 -- "creationary agenda" = about 6 "evolutionary agendas" = about 175 -- "creationary agenda" = about 4 "evolutionary propaganda" = about 612 -- "creationary propaganda" = about 6 "evolutionary propagandist" = about 138 -- "creationary propagandist" = about 3 "evolutionary propagandists" = about 279 -- "creationary propagandists" = about 4 "evolutionary perspective" = about 760,000 -- "creationary perspective = about 307 "evolutionary perspectives" = about 139,000 -- "creationary perspectives = about 4 "evolutionary philosophy" = about 37,700 -- "creationary philosophy" = about 23 "evolutionary philosophies" = about 547 -- "creationary philosophies" = about 5 "evolutionary philosopher" = about 606 -- "creationary philosopher" = about 4 "evolutionary philosophers" = about 219 -- "creationary philosophers" = about 4 "evolutionary religion" = about 619 -- "creationary religion" = about 3 "evolutionary religions" = about 619 -- "creationary religions" = about 4 "evolutionary religionist" = about 420 -- "creationary religionist" = 0 "evolutionary religionists" = about about 1,540 -- "creationary religionists" = 0 "evolutionary framework" = about 110,000 -- "creationary framework" = about 22 "evolutionary frameworks" = about 389 -- "creationary frameworks" = about 4 "evolutionary view" = about 111,000 -- "creationary view" = about 159 "evolutionary views" = about 21,500 -- "creationary views" = about 24 "evolutionary viewpoint" = about 25,700 -- "creationary viewpoint" = about 58 "evolutionary viewpoints" = about 302 -- "creationary viewpoints" = about 10 "evolutionary point of view" = about 98,000 -- "creationary point of view" = about 27 "evolutionary points of view" = about 290 -- "creationary points of view" = about 3 "evolutionary genetics" = about 607,000 -- "creationary genetics" = about 17 "evolutionary geneticist" = about 17,900 -- "creationary geneticist" = about 6 "evolutionary geneticists" = about 12,100 -- "creationary geneticists" = about 5 "evolutionary concept" = about 45,800 -- "creationary concept" = about 21 "evolutionary concepts" = about 85,700 -- "creationary concepts" = about 17

The adjective evolutionary is used very frequently by both those people who favor and those who disfavor evolution. Those evolutionary and creationary writers and editors who choose to use the parallel adjective creationary on Wikipedia webpages ought to be free to do so. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 08:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC); Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * They're not parallel because you're trying to put forward both a false dichotomy and that somehow science (which you call "evolutionary science") and creationist pseudoscience (which you call "creationary science") are somehow equally with merit (within the framework of philosophy of science). You have a rather silly essay on the subject at http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5985/creation.html &mdash; Dunc|☺ 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Morris believed that science cannot be used to study God's creative act. Instead, he believed that any evidence of past events must be interpreted through a non-scientific framework. **In his view this limitation applied equally to both evolutionary and creationary positions when attempting to answer the question of ultimate origins.**" (I added the **last sentence** which was later reverted.)

I have selected a quotation from page 233 of "The Creator in the Courtroom" (1982), a book written by philosopher/theologian Norman Geisler that may interest you and stimulate some thought on the difference between origin science and operation science. (I have changed Geisler's wording a bit by adding the parallel adjectives creationary and evolutionary where he used "creationist's" and "evolutionist's". I have also used the words "creation" and "evolution" (competing facts or putative facts) throughout, instead of "creationism" and "evolutionism" (competing ideologies). This is the modified Norman Geisler quote.

- Now in this broad speculative sense of the word "science," a creationary view is just as scientific as an evolutionary view. Unfortunately, what happened in Arkansas was the application of a double-standard. Evolution as a general theory was considered science on a broad definition of "science," and creation was considered unscientific on a narrow definition of science. If the courts are ever to recognize the scientific character of creation, then this kind of "double-dealing" must be avoided, for creation is no less scientific than is evolution. To be fair the courts must either rule both theories in or both out of the science classroom. - (from page 233, "The Creator in the Courtroom", by Norman Geisler.)

Henry M. Morris would have essentially agreed with Norman Geisler's view. Much evolutionary theory is part of origin science, not operation science. This same limitation also applies to creationary theory. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard once claimed: "The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon." Stephen Jay Gould's "fact of evolution" claim was an overstatement. The "fact of evolution" or the "putative fact of evolution" is a part of origin science. "The revolution of the earth about the sun" is a part of operation science. These two "facts" are not in the same domain.  Hans-Friedrich Tamke 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the standard creationist apologetics philosophical speculation. This has what to do with how the article stands? Please phrase you answer in terms of wiki guidelines like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR etc. JoshuaZ 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The warning above in the previous heading entitled: ==Warning==, concerning so-called "vandalism", had to do with my use of the adjective creationary in parallel with the adjective evolutionary that certain editors of Wikipedia disapproved of and attempted to disallow. The first recorded use (in 1894) of the adjective creationary was by the British philosopher James Hutchison Stirling (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6914481M/Darwinianism_workmen_and_work.). This is also attested and documented in the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) for the headword: creationary.

Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) * 1894, James Hutchison Stirling, Darwinianism: workmen and work
 * Nay, let us but consider this, that, under a general creationary theory,—before any one evolutionary doctrine, Lamarckian, Vestigian, Erasmo-Darwinian, Carlo-Darwinian, or other, came up,—never, whether in affinities, or embryology, or geology, or geography, or even rudimentary organs, was there a single difficulty felt,—let us but consider this I say, and it will be plain to be seen that all that concerns affinities and the rest constitutes no fee-simple that shall be proper and peculiar to natural selection alone. (p. 151)
 * But these homologies and the rest we hold ourselves dispensed from the consideration of, simply in view of the fact that they were a material common to all the evolutionary theories, and never on the whole denied even by the creationary ones. (p. 341)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ĉ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trigraph (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) 10:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock Dove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squab (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) 11:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Fashioned Oriental Frill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squab. 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) 12:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LCC ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Evangelical_Fellowship_of_Canada check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Evangelical_Fellowship_of_Canada?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonnie Henry
Please note that I restored BSc as the abbreviation for her Bachelor of Science degree as it is the abbreviation used by the university that conferred the degree.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meir, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Meyer and Mayer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avetis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avetik.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herrschaft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barony.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Creationist/creationary
I have started a new talk page section at talk:Created kind. Please get consensus there for your change, instead of continuing to edit war. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grace Communion International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy day.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fransaskois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Québécois.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marian feast days, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy day.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nadine (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nadezhda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Septimius Severus, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sumanuil. 06:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of surnames in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garbe.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)