User talk:Juegdtj638/archive5

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Your draft article, User:Frogger48/The World Religions & Spirituality Project (WRSP)


Hello Frogger48. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The World Religions & Spirituality Project (WRSP)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Encounter World Religions Centre concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Encounter World Religions Centre, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT themes in mythology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Awo, Aku and Yoruba (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) 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Encounter World Religions Centre


Hello Frogger48. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Encounter World Religions Centre".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What Is of God and What Isn't concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What Is of God and What Isn't, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What Is of God and What Isn't


Hello Frogger48. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Dark Side of the Supernatural: What Is of God and What Isn't".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paleolithic religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiritual. 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, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Truth For Youth concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Truth For Youth, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Truth For Youth


Hello Frogger48. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Truth For Youth".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Solution-focused news sources concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Solution-focused news sources, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Solution-focused news sources


Hello Frogger48. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "List of Solution-focused news sources".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Science and Religion: Here is the answer (just kidding)
I hope you don't mind but I just had to share a few thoughts on the topic you raised in the teahouse. Strictly speaking this isn't a proper use of Wikipedia resources since we aren't talking about editing any articles but I feel like I've dealt with a lot of grief in the teahouse today... then again I tend to give at least as good as I get... but anyway I'm going to let myself bend the rules to pontificate a bit. What I'm going to say is based on my reading of various scientists. I'm sure theologians have views on the topic as well but I'm not familiar with them so I'm just summarizing what I think are the two most dominant views among most scientists right now.

The two views have two strong advocates: Richard Dawkins on one side and Stephen J. Gould on the other. Gould's position was until recently the highly dominant one among scientists and intellectuals. His view is what he calls non-overlapping magisterium The idea is that certain topics: essentially the natural sciences, are under the purview of science. Other topics: ethics, questions of value, some or all of psychology and sociology can't be studied by science and can only be understood through religion and possibly philosophy.

First of all it's worth a bit of a tangent to realize that this distinction between science and religion/philosophy is a fairly modern distinction. Chomsky has lectures where he goes into this at length. People like Issac Newton, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz really didn't recognize this distinction at all. For them there were simply various branches of what was then called philosophy and that was broken down into natural philosophy (what we call science) and moral philosophy (although not confined to ethics as in modern philosophy).

Gould's view was appealing because science (e.g., evolution) was seen as encroaching more and more on traditional areas of religion. The benefit to religious people to wall off certain areas of inquiry is probably obvious. But the benefit to scientists was also real. Most scientists didn't care about philosophic or moral questions anyway and there could often be significant pressure against scientists for doing this. For many scientists who just wanted to do biology or some other natural science the Gould division was a nice way to say "we do our thing you do yours and don't bother us".

The major shift here was the publication of Dawkins' book The God Delusion In that book Dawkins took on the overlapping magisteria idea with a vengeance and IMO completely demolished it. (It will be obvious I side completely with Dawkins here, although I disagree just as vehemently with his latter turn toward villifying and even mocking people of faith). The other shift was what is known as the Cognitive Revolution sparked by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky showed that you could apply mathematical rigor to the analysis of things that in the past had been seen as the perview of the humanities not science such as language. It is IMO one of the least appreciated contributions of modern science how significant Chomsky's achievement was. The Chomsky hierarchy is a way of categorizing various types of language from simple bird calls to computer languages to the most complex human language. It is intensely rigrorous, there are formal proofs and it has applications in computer science (actually very significant contributions) as well as linguistics and biology. Another good example is the concept of a Nash Equilibrium. This is a totally different kind of result that applies more to ethics and human cooperation but the important point is like Chomsky's work John Forbes Nash's work is extremely rigorous, there are formal proof and also empirical data from all sorts of domains: ecosystems, behavior of groups when they vote, buying patterns of consumers, competition among corporations, all these things fall under the software sciences but Nash showed they could be dealt with rigorously and scientifically.

I'm going to close soon, I'm really rambling on here but one last crucial personal point: my view is much more in synch with Descartes, etc. I don't recognize that there are things that science can't study. In my view you can study history scientifically or morals (actually that is where I'm doing my work now based on work done by Marc Hauser) or really any topic. Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite bible scholars and I think its fair to say his approach is highly scientific. Of course you can't always do experiments but not all science requires experiments. IMO as long as you stick to the scientific method: look at data, develop theories, test those theories to the extent technology and ethics allow, you are doing science. Of course it is HARDER to do science in fields like ethics but to me that is just the kind of challenge that a good scientist likes.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Essentially, these are the main views prevalent right now. I could easily write several more pages but I'm not sure if this is the kind of info you are looking for or if you may be vehemently disagreeing or jsut bored so I'm going to stop there but if you have questions I would be happy to provide more feedback or clarifications. Hope it was fairly interesting and didn't offend you. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Article help
Hi, it's WelshWonderWoman here, I saw your post on my Talk page and appreciate your offer of help or support. This editing thing is all very new to me and I currently have an article awaiting review so if it doesn't work out I'd be glad of a little advice along the way. Thanks WelshWonderWoman (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
A small companion for you, to keep you company and in good spirit in a sometimes not so gentle world. :)

w.carter -Talk  13:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC) 

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Frogger48! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 07:03, Tuesday, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Skeptic links and Notability
Hello, I have noticed that on some of the articles at Wikipedia like the page about Near-death experiences, there are links to articles from websites like Skeptic Magazine and Internet Infidels. Question, are links to websites like these and similar skeptical or Atheist websites reliable and notable, in the context of the mainstream scientific and academic community (in particular their assertion that the scientific method can not study supernatural phenomena such as if a God exists or not http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters) and are useful to include on Wikipedia pages? Frogger48 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Have the sites been covered in a significant manner by third parties? If so they are notable.Has the site a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and analysis of fringe claims? If so then it is probably a reliable source regarding fringe claims. See also WP:PARITY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)I suspect this should probably be moved to WP:RSN at some point.Science cannot deal with supernatural claims in isolation, but it can test supernatural claims about the natural world. For example, if someone says carrying a gold medallion with a particular image on it, sticking needles in just the right spot, or drinking water that's had arsenic completely filtered out of it will all cure the common cold, that's perfectly testable. Whether there is a non-physical soul, if it survives after the body's death, and what ensures that this survival is a positive experience is not testable, but claims that the spirits of the deceased can regularly and meaningfully communicate with the living can be tested. Thus, skeptical sites can be completely appropriate for articles relating to the supernatural (for example, a while ago I listed a Skeptoid article at Dybbuk box).Internet Infidels takes a noted atheist stance, and so may be as appropriate to include as a comparable religious site in terms of NPOV. I would not make a blanket ruling in either direction, just a recommendation to consider whether they are being listed for religiously-neutral skeptical purposes (almost always fine) or specifically atheist purposes (which can be fine for topics on atheism, but would be inappropriate for religious topics that do not make scientifically testable claims). Listing Internet Infidels would be inappropriate in Naraka as an Evangelical publication, in Trinity as a Muslim publication, and in Tawhid as a Neo-pagan publication.Skeptic magazine appears to usually be more neutral, and is probably fine to include when it is specifically about that topic or not an opinion piece (so that one unusual issue that was pretty much an advertisement for Dawkin's God Delusion would be fine to link in our article on that book and its author, but probably not God). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Skeptic links and Notability
Hello, I have noticed that on some of the articles at Wikipedia like the page about Near-death experiences, there are links to articles from websites like Skeptic Magazine and Internet Infidels. Question, are links to websites like these and similar skeptical or Atheist websites reliable and notable, in the context of the mainstream scientific and academic community (in particular their assertion that the scientific method can not study supernatural phenomena such as if a God exists or not http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters) and are useful to include on Wikipedia pages? Frogger48 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have the sites been covered in a significant manner by third parties? If so they are notable.
 * Has the site a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and analysis of fringe claims? If so then it is probably a reliable source regarding fringe claims. See also WP:PARITY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect this should probably be moved to WP:RSN at some point.
 * Science cannot deal with supernatural claims in isolation, but it can test supernatural claims about the natural world. For example, if someone says carrying a gold medallion with a particular image on it, sticking needles in just the right spot, or drinking water that's had arsenic completely filtered out of it will all cure the common cold, that's perfectly testable.  Whether there is a non-physical soul, if it survives after the body's death, and what ensures that this survival is a positive experience is not testable, but claims that the spirits of the deceased can regularly and meaningfully communicate with the living can be tested.  Thus, skeptical sites can be completely appropriate for articles relating to the supernatural (for example, a while ago I listed a Skeptoid article at Dybbuk box).
 * Internet Infidels takes a noted atheist stance, and so may be as appropriate to include as a comparable religious site in terms of NPOV. I would not make a blanket ruling in either direction, just a recommendation to consider whether they are being listed for religiously-neutral skeptical purposes (almost always fine) or specifically atheist purposes (which can be fine for topics on atheism, but would be inappropriate for religious topics that do not make scientifically testable claims).  Listing Internet Infidels would be inappropriate in Naraka as an Evangelical publication, in Trinity as a Muslim publication, and in Tawhid as a Neo-pagan publication.
 * Skeptic magazine appears to usually be more neutral, and is probably fine to include when it is specifically about that topic or not an opinion piece (so that one unusual issue that was pretty much an advertisement for Dawkin's God Delusion would be fine to link in our article on that book and its author, but probably not God). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Frogger48! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:38, Wednesday, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
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.


 * Christine Ebersole
 * added a link pointing to Venue


 * Virtuous Pedophiles
 * added a link pointing to Stigma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Frogger48! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 02:44, Sunday, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christine Ebersole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revival. 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) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies on Wikipedia
Hi Frogger. I've removed your apology from the child protection talk, it's not really the right place for it. Apologies mean very little on Wikipedia, where changes in behaviour mean much more. If you do feel the need to apologise, here is the place to do it, or directly to those involved. WormTT(talk) 07:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christine Ebersole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Production. 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) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A apology for my past disruptive behavior
I am very sorry for the disruptive behavior on the Teahouse and the Wikipedia Child protection policy talk page and to all the users who were affected by it a while ago. Just to be clear, I do NOT promote, support or condone any form of criminal acts, including Pedophilia ON or OFF Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Christian denominations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages American Catholic Church and Reformed Catholic Church. 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) 10:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Frogger48! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:53, Wednesday, September 12, 2018 (UTC)