User talk:Ramos1990/Archive 1

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Atheism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the editing at Atheism, and I'd like to suggest that you discuss your reasoning for your edits at Talk:Atheism. I realize that you are a new editor, and I want to make sure that you don't get into an edit war. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take Tryptofish's advice to heart and come to the talk page to discuss. Trypto and I can be pretty patient... not everyone is for things like this. Your synthesis of the cites you use is in direct contradiction to what they actually say. That's not how we do things, as it introduces original research which is prohibited here. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Atheism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it really. However, I think that if you do read it you will notice that 17% IS out of the hate crimes in 2009 which are 7,775.

Here is what the website says: 7,775 offenses total for hate crimes in 2009.

The website says "Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias."

1,376 / 7,775 = .1769 which is 17.7%.

I was not wrong on this.

Religiously biased crimes are not 17.7 out all Violent crimes in 2009 which are about 1.3 million.

What do you think?

Editing the article
Greetings. I wanted to know what was the main complaint on my edit. You claimed that I was making new research, when I have just regurgitated the sources themselves. The only plausible objection that I see is my assertion that most violence in America is indeed secular since the FBI tables show that very few people commit crimes based on religious beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos1990 (talk • contribs)

Please help me make my post better.
 * Hi, thank you for asking. You need to find a reliable source that says such. The FBI tables show that over 17% are religiously motivated. That's contrary to what you wrote. You can start working on some additions in your userspace, and I will see if I can help you - but you should read up on things like WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to see what things you cannot add to articles. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, please remember to put your responses after mine, and I'll put mine after yours, etc. OK, here's the problem. Your original research/synthesis is in thinking that the hate crime numbers have anything to do with other crimes. There are many crimes that are not deemed (by the law) hate crimes that may be caused by similar reasons. So, the stats simply can't be cross-applied to come up with the original research you did. You'd have to know, of all crimes, what the stats were for religiously motivated ones - which I do not see. You cannot extrapolate. We can only allow an expert that we can cite do that. Best R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 01:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I see your point. I will exclude this part.

How about the rest of the stuff I put in? These rest was sociological data on the religious beliefs of atheists from the first world wide study on atheists from all over the world.

Can I add this? Or do you see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos1990 (talk • contribs)

Hi, it's a pretty extensive section. Perhaps what you want to do is post a message on that article's talk page and ask everyone who works on that article for their opinions and suggestions. Also, that way you can join into the discussions on that page. Also, remember when you make a post on a talk page to sign your posts. You can do that really easily simply by putting  ~  at the end of your posts and it will automagically be turned into your signature. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Ornithikos thanks sooo much for your suggestions!! I am very grateful for your recommendations! Thanks also to RoberMfromLi!! I will try to introduce the newest research on atheism in the "talk atheism" section you recommended! Both of you are very good at allowing people into wikipedia. I really am humbled by it. Ornithikos, yeah, it seems wikipedia is really about passions firing at each other constantly especially with matters of religion. The removals of valuable information here are worse than for peer reviewed scientific research.


 * Thank you both once more
 * Ramos1990 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Template: Criticism of Religion
Hey Ion Zone,

Thanks for the heads up on this page. I have placed my comments where you directed me. Man these people are pretty stupid and crazy. The whole template is completely stupid and retarded since all of their notable critics are non-experts on these issues and are completely unreliable on these issues.

If there are any more idiot pages like this please continue to inform me. I will help you out in making these pages more neutral and balanced.

Keep up the good work. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks


 * Thanks to you too. :) I think that if we get enough opposition we can at least get some actual experts on there. :P
 * Ion Zone (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ramos, I have just discovered the Criticism of Religion page, it has to be the most ridiculously non-factual, POV and COI page I have ever seen, would you be interested in helping me do something about this mess? :)
 * Ion Zone (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah this page is pretty messed up. It looks like people came randomly, pooped in there and didn't clean up. Sure I'll help make this article more neutral and accurate one small piece at a time. If you find some errors just change them. I'll help you if there are edit wars. I saw some you already had. Since this page is very controversial, I would suggest you make your edits small and build it little by little since writing whole sections would alarm other editors. I had this experience once. You have some good points. I noted that there are "counterargument" sections throughout the article on many topics, perhaps you can add your material (piece by piece) there or create "counterargument" sections as you see fit. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. Is there any reason for your continually deleting my contribution to wikipedia page Criticism of Atheism? I believe my point is completely valid, and there is no reason for it to be deleted. Can you compromise with me on this? There is an overwhelming amount of information indicating the possibility that atheism is considered a religion, however, not nearly enough information supporting the other side of the debate.

Political commentator, television host, and author, Bill Maher, has stated in his New Rules segment on February 3, 2012, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position," indicating that atheism cannot possibly be considered a religion, and the notion of such is as absurd as calling the absence of sex, sex. He also stated in his segment that "idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion." , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickarette (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Slickerette, Glad to hear your thoughts. I will respond on your talk page. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ramos1990, thank you for your helpful hints. I did make a "sock puppet account" for Slickarette2 since I thought I had been banned. I did not, however, make any more "sock puppet accounts", and am not sure what you are referring to when you said "WHOA! Clam down please. Right now I checked your edits. I am telling you - you are going to get blocked soon if you keep this up! Its now becoming WP:VANDAL. Also it seems you have created a sock puppet account as "IhategodYEah". I am giving you a heads up on whats going to happen. --Ramos1990 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickarette (talk • contribs)
 * Hey no problem. I am glad to help. I understand you felt you were banned, but it looks like you are still ok. I am not sure if "IhategodYEah" was you, but since the edits looked the same as yours and then you did the same edit as "Slickarette", then I made the inference. It still looks that way to me. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you feel there is an addition that may cause controversy in any article, you should bring it up first in the article talk page to diffuse any objections other editors may have. Its just better since some pages are "guarded" more than others and one is bound to find more resistance. You will get used to it.--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure of the specifics, but if you find sockpuppets try and go the the right noticeboard to have it dealt with, going 7RR with sockpuppets isn't a great idea. Report them at WP:SPI and maybe WP:RFPP. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Demarcation discussion
Hi Ramos1990,

In the recent discussion you said that "most of philosophy is independent of historiography or history." That statement reflects our fundamental disagreement and I thought it would be helpful to briefly spell out my perspective. I was trained as a historian of science (in the history of ideas tradition) and disagree strongly with that statement. No philosophy, (or science of religion for that matter) is independent of history; all ideas are developed by specific historical actors working within specific historical contexts and are, to varying degrees, influenced by those historical contexts. To treat the development of philosophy (or science or religion) as the growth of disembodied ideas is glaringly incomplete. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Steve McCluskey, thanks for your comment. I originally noted that I partially agreed with your original Kant quote, because of course all people interact with their peers in their time and they even take information form their predecessors on top of making original and novel ides. No doubt about that. You noted some good points though. But most of philosophy, I didn't mention science or religion, is focused on ideas - past and present - without detailing much of a historical account or historical review. Generally if a philosopher notes significant ideas form their present and the past, they are noted along with possibly who espoused the idea, but the bulk of the arguments are focused on ideas themselves which are for the sake of ideas, otherwise no new philosophical ideas would emerge due to constant historical reviewing. If there is some historical review in a given writing (say Plato or Aristotle), its not for the sake of history nor are they acting as historians (whose main job is to detail things from the past), they may use historical objects to build up on on ideas and perhaps to lay down context to continue to build up ideas. I agree with what you said, "To treat the development of philosophy (or science or religion) as the growth of disembodied ideas is glaringly incomplete.", but to treat philosophy as just historical would be a gross error as writings of philosophers have not been primarily about history or historical accounts. Those writings have been about ideas, concepts, metaphysics, heuristics, principles,approaches, methods, etc. which are meant to represent systems of ideas. More people know about Deontology, Platomism, Falifiability, Epicureanism, etc from just hearing about the concepts, not by reviewing their history or historical data. I hope this clears up my view.--Ramos1990 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think we're talking past each other. History isn't just listing one damn thing after another or presenting the sources of a particular idea; it asks questions about why people in particular times and places chose to do certain things; for example, why certain philosophers chose to address the question of demarcation.  In the case of Aristotle and the Hippocratic writers (to grossly oversimplify) they addressed the question of demarcation because it provided a useful tool to put down those philosophers and medical practitioners they disagreed with on other issues. This doesn't deny the intrinsic interest of the demarcation problem, but the underlying motivations that drove the protagonists to address such philosophically interesting questions are part of what makes the problem historically interesting. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical interest on any given topic is not the same as philosophical discourse necessarily. Historical arguments proposed for an an idea would be philosophy, and they may include other historical references to enhance an argument. This should not be a problem. I know philosophy does intersect with many fields including history, perhaps this is what makes this tedious. But there would need to be a distinction between the history of an idea (which includes many dimensions - social, cultural, political, etc.) and philosophical discourse of an idea (focuses mainly on conceptual construction of ideas). After all, historical uses of deontological ethics are a different context than the formulation and construction of deontology itself, no? I am sure you will agree that philosophical discourse is not the same as historical discourse in terms of nature, scope, and aim. One difference is that philosophical discourses are known to be very tedious and very narrow in scope and sometimes very long (i.e. Kant's critique of judgement). I hope this clarifies further. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice discussion; as historians and philosophers we'll probably continue to see things differently. Steve (SteveMcCluskey (talk)) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of religion and theology
I've added a great deal to Criticism of theology and History of criticism of religion. Your input would be appreciated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Proxima Cantauri, appreciate you seeking input from others. I will see what you have worked on soon and maybe offer some edits per wikipedia protocols. --Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a great deal of what was taken out can be put back when I've had time to look up sources. I haven't much time today but I'll make a start. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Proxima Centauri, absolutely. That is what I noted in one of my edits. I also restored one of your points (with 2 sources) which I thought was easy enough to find. Pretty much any entries put into an article which make very specific claims like "X,Y, and Z were critics of ...." or "A and B have disputed ...." should contain sources which specify that point. It gets problematic when one reads more into a source than the source allows. For instance the Bruno sources did not say he was a critic of religion, but was a heretic. A heretic is a person who has different views, not necessarily a person who criticizes other views, let alone whole categories of life like religion, since they come to believe their views irrespective of "resistance" by any other group.


 * On a side note, for entries here, the focus of the article should be kept in mind - it is about religion in general, not specific religions. Other articles exist for specific religions. A criticism of Hinduism is not in itself a criticism of religion unless a source links the criticism to a general concept of religion in some way. The Criticism of religion page has had much over-interpreting due to overlooking this simple distinction, which I have been removing little by little. However, I will assist you in what I can find available as sources. Also, just a footnote, I noticed that in your edits you normally do not write things for the "edit summary". Its probably a good idea to write things in there so that other editors can see reasoning for your contributions. It helps us all get an idea of what you are trying to accomplish and gives others context. Good job overall. --Ramos1990 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Criticism of religion and Criticism of Christianity are distinct but in practise much criticism of religion happened in western societies with a Christian tradition. Therefore frequently the same people criticised/criticise both religion generally and Christianity in particular.  Western critics of religion sometimes criticise many different religions as well as criticising religion generally but tend to focus criticism on Christianity.  I feel the article on Criticism of religion should point this out and link to the Criticism of Christianity article where appropriate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Proxima Centauri, good job on the recent edits with citations. I agree with you in that many "criticisms" of religion are extrapolated from criticisms of Christianity mainly, but most criticisms are not broad or even diverse to even be applicable to other religions. Criticism of general concepts like theism, atheism, animism, mindsets, behavior, violence should be the focus in the article since they are broad as is and not religion-specific per se. So broad things like criticism of theology would be ok to link in the crit. of religion. Though I do think that most criticisms come from Western Judeo-Christian traditions, I don't think we should link "Criticism of Christianity" or other specific religions in the *main* sections of the article. Actually, if you look at the very bottom in the "See also" section, it already has the links to the criticism of all sorts of religions. This is appropriate as it does not disturb the focus of the article.


 * However, since your point is quite important and since most of the article is saturated with Western religious contexts, maybe you can state in the intro to the article that many criticisms of religion in general are extrapolated from Western cultures and Western religions to highlight your point. It would help summarize the article too. Just a few thoughts. What do you think? --Ramos1990 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Today I added to Criticism of religion but I came across material about Madeleine Bunting, she criticises the critics of religion and the critics of religion unsurprisingly criticise her. That gets a bit complex. Anyway the Madeleine Bunting article is a stub so I added a bit there too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I did a little more copyediting to make it more clear what your addition said. I think it is a relevant source.--Ramos1990 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism
Thanks, Ramos1990, for your invitation to provide my input on the New Atheists section, in the Criticism of Atheism Talk page. I've been offline for the last ten days and am just catching up now. I've had a glance at the Talk section, and seen how much discusssion has taken place! I'll look through it in detail over the next day or so and see if there's anything useful I can contribute. -- Jmc (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your positive feedback on my latest tweaking - and for carrying it over to the main 'Atheism' article. That particular section has been bashed around quite a bit, and that was one point where it seemed to have lost coherence. And a more general thanks to you for being such a vigilant guardian of the article as a whole! -- Jmc (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Ramos1990, for your taking the trouble to point me to the Eller paper online. Its anthropological approach certainly is a refreshing change. I do agree with you that it's "one of the few reasonable papers on atheism, secularity, and religion to date". Having read the full context now, I'm not so sure that the extract does belong in an article on the criticism of atheism. But I'll wait to see how the Talk page discussion plays out. -- Jmc (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Dear Editor,

I saw your name in the edit history of some religion/atheism related articles and you seem to have a lot of experience in religion/atheism related articles. I therefore invite you to join the ongoing discussion in the talk page of the RD's article. To give you an introduction, there has been many occasions where people wanted to add a criticism section or a criticism article about Dawkins, but were told that it is a better practice to include the criticism in the main article (per WP:CRIT); only if the amount of criticism is too much one may then make allocate a separate section or article for criticism. Though, this by itself is a valid argument, there has always been a problem with choosing what to include and what not to include as due criticism in the main article which leaves the article with very little criticism relative to the huge amount of criticisms out there about Dawkins.

I would like to know your opinion on this.--User 99 119 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings User 99 119, Thank you for the invite to the RD page. I have been invited once before, but for me I am not really interested in researching Richard Dawkins as he seem to be a negligible person and is not really a person worth wasting my time on. I usually don't do much on biographies at all. I usually do major topics. However, based on your info on the article, what "main article" is the one being referred to? Richard Dawkin's? Criticisms relating to him as a person should be a part of an article on him and it looks like some criticisms are already in the article already. Are you trying to make a section of criticism? If so, then you can check out WP:BITR for dealing with criticisms on individuals. Coat racking is easy to commit and maybe much of the issues you have seen are of this nature. Criticisms are generally quite awkward because simple statements like "X said that Y is wrong", could or could also not be considered a criticism.


 * For some so called "bitching" statements, they could be considered criticism but they are usually not allowed either. I've been doing criticism pages for a while and there is lots of gray areas since even informing that something is wrong or incorrect is sometimes perceived as not being criticism. It depends on the sources intent, context, and aim. Some editors will just revert because they don't like the certain legitimate criticisms too. Since Richard Dawkin's article is supposed to be about a person, it is best to simply include criticisms within the general sections already there or create topical subheadings (maybe call one "Views on religion" and include criticism of his views there) instead of sections per se (i.e Rush Limbaugh as this is about a person and perhaps it would not be wise to make major highlight of criticisms on this page. Public figures get criticized often (i.e. Barack Obama) and there does seem to be a liberal bias on wikipedia, but you can balance it out with a few option I noted. I hope this helps. --Ramos1990 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hey, you seem to be edit warring some content at Relationship between religion and science which appears to have been in the article a long time. It's generally expected that people discuss issues when their bold change is reverted. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your concern, but I have not gotten into an edit war yet as I only did a revert once. Since my only revert was reverted I discussed in the talk page. --Ramos1990 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of William Palley
You moved the picture of William Paley back to the right hand side in the Watchmaker analogy article. The problem with that position is that it is obscured by the quotation. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, appreciate your comment. Yes I did that since it was consistent with the other biographies there. Also the image being on the left was actually worse because you have to read around it. I don't see how it is obscured by the quotation if it is on the right. Looking at Darwin's section is the same situation. Perhaps removing the long title in the Paley picture would remove the problem. I'll try it and you can change it if you want. --Ramos1990 (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem may relate to my settings (although I can't imagine that mine are particularly unusual). For the Paley picture, the quotation sits on top of the picture and thus makes most of it unviewable. For some reason, in the case of Darwin, the picture sits on top of the quotation and thus both the picture and the quotation are readable. I have no idea why, although presumably it is something to do with the quotation template. I tried removing the "right" tag, but that didn't do any good. The other (less serious) problem with the picture in its present position is that it results in an area of white space after the heading, before the text. Both problems can be solved by moving the picture down - still on the right, but after the quotation. Would that be acceptable? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had another look. The quotation template is correctly recognising that the picture is there. It puts in new lines to prevent the text appearing over the picture. But the resulting white space itself obscures the picture. Go figure.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I have changed to the quote template which seems to solve the problem, revert if you don't like the result.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your last change was reasonable. Does the same problem exist for Darwin? I think we can remove the quotations template also so that there is no issue and it will be consistent with the style of the article. I'll try it. Feel free to revert if there is any issue. --Ramos1990 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For some reason the Darwin quote was OK, but using the quote template is consistent. I have now moved the picture again. On my screen it appears in more or less the same place, but without the white space. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm good with your latest change. Maybe the bowsers or the screen size that we both have are what is making the biggest shift in what we see, but I think everything looks good to me from my side. --Ramos1990 (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Article for Deletion/Keeping
Dear User:Ramos1990, thank you for your message on my talk page. I must apologize for seeing it so late. It looks like the article in question is no longer active, which is how I feel about such an article anyways. I am happy to see that outcome and really appreciate you thinking of me! Happy Easter to you and yours! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was taken care of. Happy Easter to you too Anupam!--Mayan1990 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Atheism
Hi Ramos1990. Once upon a time you thanked me for an edit in the article atheism. Currently it seems to me that an editor is trying to bulldoze through the deletion of the entire section dealing with state atheism. Whilst I can agree with him that the pre-exisiting was too long, I can't agree with him that state atheism is irrelevant. You might like to review the talk page to see if you have anything to contribute? Ozhistory (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of atheism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kenneth Miller. 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) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

100 Years of Nobel Prizes
Even assuming it's not vanity press, it's not a reliable source. It falls well short on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and contradicts better studies that appear on the same pages. Whether Shimon Peres or Henry Kissinger liked it is totally immaterial. Pepper Beast   (talk)  06:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the issue at RSN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning
I strongly suggest you stop edit warring this source into Wikipedia while discussion is ongoing at RSN.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Demographics of atheism, List of Christian thinkers in science, Relationship between religion and science, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Religiosity and education, and List of Muslim Nobel laureates.

Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hey

 * Yes you'r point is rigth. Any the book is reliable, i'm sure if the source said 65% of Nobel prize winners were atheist, no one will make a deal about that soruce and the percents will become relevant. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And just becouse in some wikipeida articles don't mention about the religion of some Nobel prize winners that mean nothing, when you search about the religion of these winners you will find by several soruces that many of them been christians (nominal and religius). Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey i think if the article title changed to List of Christians in science and technology. will be less problems about the article, since there been argues about what mean christian thinker. while Christians in science and technology is enough bringing sources about scientists who consider themself as christians.--Jobas (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates.Jobas (talk) 13:58, 24 September 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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion
Please notice the "In use" tag at top!!! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

IP
The IP posting at Talk:Conflict thesis is a sock of User:Azul411. He usually haunts various Galileo-related discussions. For my part I haven't yet had time to read Gingerich's piece. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion in Chinese and Japanese politics (or the lack thereof)
The source for this information is provided in the (Wikipedia) links to these countries; I will add it back and specify the links. This is also true for the other statements that do not have explicit references. It sometimes helps to check those links before deleting stuff (it even sometimes helps to check the cited references which most zealous deleters never do). I think it is important to mention China and Japan, given their huge size and economic importance. Peteruetz (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here in wikipedia, the references are the most essential since the wikilinks merely refer to other articles. If a source is found in an article, then you can drag it into the desired article so the claim is supported by the source. I usually read the citattions to make sure that what an edito inserts is accurate and not WP:SYN or WP:OR. Mayan1990 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your criteria at List of atheists in science and technology
Hello Ramos1990. I would like to understand the criteria you use to add and remove entries to/from List of atheists in science and technology, specially regarding notability. You recently removed the entry of a prominent technologist that was accompanied by citations. Was it a subjective move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.234.11.106 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello 177.234.11.106. The criteria used on that particular page is found in that page: "IMPORTANT: Do not add a name to this list unless they are notable for their atheism, and, in the case of living persons, self-identify as atheists. Entries that do not include a source reference will be deleted. Celebatheists is NOT a reliable source. A statement by a living person that they do not believe in God is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion in this list, neither is description in a third-party source as a self-confessed atheist. The person should have described themselves as an atheist in their own speech or writing, to satisfy the BLP policy requirements spelled out in WP:BLPCAT."


 * Obviously the person being included has to have their atheism be notable in their lives and also to have made a notable contribution to science or technology. Merely not believing in God is not a valid reason for inclusion because many scientists who are atheists are atheists in passing and some do not even identify with atheism, but choose to practice traditions even without a belief in god. In other words, they do not do much with their atheism. Without some strict criteria, the list would be incredibly long with irrelevant entries. Also I discussed this same thing on the talk page Talk:List of atheists in science and technology. Hope this helps. Mayan1990 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

LTEE
Fair enough on the number of papers number. I don't entirely agree, as I think the number is a good indicator of the impact of the experiment in the literature. However, I can see the better way to stress that is to continue to add information on particular findings and lines of research. Zaalis (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ramos, a thank you also from me - both for taking the time to actually explain things and for tackling the COI angle, which I didn't feel up to put forward myself. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know how it feels to be new at this. One has to be careful with lots of things on wikipedia. Experienced editors will eventually find out and raise issues. :)Mayan1990 (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates.Jobas (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Dear User:Ramos1990, I appreciate that you've joined the discussion and am thankful for your valuable comments, which should hopefully clarify the reason that we are including the section to User:Xenophrenic. I just wanted to let you know that you may have accidentally forgot to sign your last comment here. I look forward to the continued conversation there! I hope this helps! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that Anupam! I went ahead and signed it. Glad I was able to provide some alternative opinion to all of this. Mayan1990 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How about this section name for the Criticism of Atheism concepts subtopic
Criticism of atheological arguments Thanks for your participation and advice on this topic! As a new user, I very much appreciate the tips you've been giving me. KSci (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism Atheism and science edit Your Revision as of 05:24, 26 August 2015
Hi Ramos1990, this is just something I want to bring to your attention. In reading the current version of "Atheism and science" I had some difficulty with the bold text below. I think I know what it is suppose to say but before making a change I looked back in the logs to see the history. It turns out, this was your addition so I thought I'd just hand this off to you. Is the bold wording (below) as you wanted it? "Prior to Darwin, the findings of biology did not play a major part in the atheist's arguments since in the earliest avowedly atheist texts, atheists were embarrassed by the difficulty of accounting for the evidence used for design by an appeal to chance. As Schroeder has noted, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries theists excelled atheists in their ability to make contributions to the serious study of biological processes."

Best! 21:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs)


 * Hi KSci, that is what the source said. Before Darwin, using chance as an argument for how the world came to be was an embarrassment for atheists. Atheists obviously had to resort to chance arguements since they rejected a basis of order for the formation of the world. Atheists had difficulty arguing against the available agreements for design because chance was seen a ridiculous before Darwin's conceptions. Does this help? Huitzilopochtli (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

We are in compete agreement oncontent, it was only a trivial matter of wording that I thought you might want to improve. I'd have done it except I thought you might prefer to do so.

KSci (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Relig and intelligence
It looks like there's been a lot of movement on this page and its talk page since I last visited, a few months back. I'm currently just out of hospital following an accident- so I'll either have a bunch of time to edit or not. As it stands, just reading the talk page has given me a massive headache! I'll see what I can do to give some objective contributions- on the talk page if not elsewhere. Thanks for the heads up and for thinking of me in this way. I agree with the above commenter, btw- having a signature that doesn't match your username made things just a little more confusing than they needed to be.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi there. I noticed you are using a different name in your signature than your username, for example here. Per WP:SIGPROB such a signature is especially confusing for new users who expect signatures to reflect the user's name and should not be used. As such, please change your signature to either contain your username as well or consider requesting a change of your username if you prefer editing under another name. Regards  So Why  09:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted it a little and should be easier to identify with my 1990. Its not really hard since one can click on the user name and there it is.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hero's journey into Rank-Raglan mythotype. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah. Ok thanks Diannaa for the information and for taking care of this. I will keep this in mind when moving things from another wikipage. Usually I add a "see also" or "main page" wikilink, but had not had a chance to do so yet. Also, I did not copy the whole section. I only copied a good chunk of it. I will add a "see also" right now to help clarify. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Irreligion
You could protect this page, this user wants to place Germany among the most atheist nations and the sources provided say less than 35%. Thank you.--186.151.60.76 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I tried posting for protection for this page, but it was declined for the time being. Please leave edit summaries with all your edits so that editors can see explanations for each of your edits. If you do not, you are risking sanctions by never leaving an edit summary. Protect your reputation here on wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have started Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , sounds good. Thanks for doing all that work! It looks like it was an easy case and all is taken care of. I will add a comment there soon.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cheers.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓  22:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind mention. I'm not always the most articulate (in getting points across), but I guess I'm making some progress. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey User:ThePromenader, no problem. I thought what you said was very well stated and I think it may have gotten lost in all the noise. So I repeated and built on top of what you wrote a little since I was having similar thoughts. Good job on that. I think that we both think in some similar ways on some issues since I have been on the same "voting" side as you before, but we probably express ourselves differently. Maybe we are both making some progress after all. :) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't about 'voting' or 'sides', it's about WP:V. As much as I dislike the evils that indoctrination like YEC do to (young) minds, the topic we are commenting on is a film that passes the notablility test... and that's it. You'll never see any 'just because I don't like it' from me, and if our goal is WP:V, we'll always be on the same page ; ) T P  ✎ ✓ 15:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say this was about voting on sides. Only that I have reached similar views to you on a few issues. Of course there are differences in how all editors gauge these situations and seeing eye to eye not always a result, but what else can one do but try to make the points and see if others agree.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm harping this point because it's rather worrisome to hear you mention it so often. Any activity here is not about contributors (or their 'opinions' or 'agreeing'), it is about fact and, together, accumulating a body of evidence and considering the preponderance of evidence therein (to determine fact). Even voting, opinion and consensus can be overturned if evidince shows that it is demonstrably wrong.
 * I'm sure there are many many things we 'agree' on, but if we both compare what we 'know' to reality (instead of (selective) opinion, etc.), we're going to agree on even more ; ) T P  ✎ ✓ 19:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mention it often at all. I only have a few times and only very recently mainly with you. I hear you but people on wikipedia are volunteers and so are the admins. They do not always follow protocols or even have the same interpretations of the polices and plus the fact that the policies on wikipedia are also changeable, not fixed, means that editors will have some gray areas in their interpretations. "Facts" or like you said "compare what we 'know' to reality (instead of (selective) opinion, etc.)" are also always interpreted differently. There is no "absolute" knowledge that editors or even laymen tap into to reach their conclusions about reality and all of its complexity. Politics is an easy example, no? Why do people not agree with each other there? Facts are usually not obvious nor do they lead to any particular conclusion, so this creates some more gray areas. Its only natural and this is seen more clearly in controversial topics. WP:BUTITSTRUE and WP:TRUTH have some interesting things on this stuff. When reliable sources are available much of the issues disappear. Not all, but some major ones do. So obviously, stick to reliable sources since they are the core basis for any content on wikipedia. I usually do, even if I disagree with the contents of the reliable source :) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not following protocol and 'interpreting' things (especially facts) is simply not permissible on Wikipedia, we cannot 'allow' (let alone capitalise on) that. There's a preponderance of evidence... and that's it! T P  ✎ ✓ 06:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish it was that simple and linear, but it doesn't look like it is that way in practice and . But at least we can all try!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Irreligion In the united states
I moved this part to you talk page, as it is more personal criticism than is good for the talk page.

Do you agree with this table? I think this is a straightforward conversion of the figure in the authority (including the caption and explanation in the text). From the table it is clear the number of people who answered no to whether they considered themselves religious is 45%-46% and the number of people who answered yes to whether these considered themselves religious is 54%. The last is also mentioned in the authority. I don't think you can get much light between "irreligious" and not "religious", and we don't have any data whether people consider themselves "irreligious". Please also read No_original_research and About_valid_routine_calculations and What SYNTH is not and What SYNTH is not. You are crying of irresponsible "extrapolation", "synthesization" while all I am doing is adding two numbers from a figure. Moreover, you are taking everything but the kitchen sink into a discussion about the how the researchers processed and represented the data, and refuse to answer simple questions about your understanding of the article, which would help resolve the matter much quicker that all these evasions. All we are discussing here is how many people answered "no" or "not" or in other ways negatively to to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not". It's really that simple. You appear not to agree with the result. You appear concerned with what readers will think about Americans when reading the result. I told you already that other indicators could be useful. But that's no reason to cry WP:SYN over and over again.

I was TRYING to get to that the "result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection" of the sources, by trying to clear up what the confusion was. But due to your repeated evasiveness on VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS about statements in the authority it is impossible to come to a consensus. Empty statements like "It is as it reads." are NOT an explanation of what you think what they mean by "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions.", which (to me appears to indicate) that they split up the "not religious" into the ones that ticked "spiritual" and "not spiritual", and you did not confirm you agreed to that when specifically asked.

It's impossible to know what people think when they consider themselves "generally speaking" religious. Maybe they say no because they are didn't go to confession last month, or because they are not a monk, the pope or Jesus, or because of stigma. But asking them questions like that is not the worst way.

About affiliation: many people probably consider themselves part of certain communities. How many people believe in Hell/God may be a better indicator, who knows. But the only sources I have for whether people consider themselves not religious when asked straight up are pretty consistently in the 40-45% range and going up rapidly. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is here, but there isn't much to discuss, aside from what is already on the talk page. Routine calculations are simple arithmetic when things are not controversial. Like it says on the policy page "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." If we were talking about simple things like age, or population size or other simple and obvious matter, it would not be controversial.


 * But here we are talking about really complex things like religion and irreligion which include beliefs, belonging and behavior. So with you clumping 45% into "not religious" is NOT "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age..." because the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" are NOT obvious! Again the majority of the "unaffiliated" have religious beliefs (Belief in God 68%) and those who are "spiritual but not religious" are mostly people with a religion (60%)! Clearly the meanings are both VERY complex - are those without a religion, religious? And are the religious, nonreligious? They all seem to go in both ranges in one way or another and so the simplification of "Religious" or "Not religious" is not helpful, nor is it what the source says. If you want to use another statistic to twist facts, the you might as well say that since most Americans are affiliated with a religion (around 80% based on Pew Research center's Religious Landscape) that America is a very religious place. (I would disagree with that oversimplification too since the dynamics are more complex than that.) The fact that most people affiliate with a religion in the US, should make you rethink of labeling a massive chunk as "not religious".


 * Since you admit that "It's impossible to know what people think when they consider themselves "generally speaking" religious.", then why do you make a value judgment in the voice of wikipedia! If the source said it specifically, then attribution would solve the issue, but the source does not make that claim - you are deducing a different conclusion by yourself. The question from Pew on religious person or spiritual person (and even WIN-Gallup's clumsy wording) was not really a good one since it was either yes or no. There was no room for flexible answers despite the fact that everyone has shades of religiosity and secularity. So these rigid numbers are not really representative. If a survey asked you if you were "loyal to Britain" yes or no, would the ones who said yes be patriots and the others traitors? I think you get the idea. Such dichotomies must be contextualized, not isolated.


 * The easiest and straightest things on the source you mentioned is that 18% are neither religious nor spiritual. It is also the most relevant for the irreligion article since clearly these 18% are rejecting everything and not juggling around labels like religious or spiritual.


 * Also if you believe that lumping is straight forward, then why can't you cite a direct quote specifying your claim? I did for mine and I even quoted them in the citation. If the source specifically says 45% are "not religious" then you can add that since the source made the claims and meaning and interpretation, not you or me. You and I are editors, not experts on the issues so inserting our interpretation of the numbers on such complex things like religion are not simple basic arithmetic with obvious meaning. The sources have to make the interpretation when dealing with non obvious things like religion or spirituality or irreligion. Readers can make their own interpretations on all of the mess of beliefs, belonging, and behavior by reading the sources. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See, you are still evading/not addressing A) Whether you agree with the table B) Conflating data processing methodology (which is mathematics)/data processing with whether the right questions were asked. C) How YOU interpret "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions." D) Whether you think they split up the people who responded negatively to the religiosity question according to how they responded to the spirituality question.

You are still accusing of E) twisting data/extrapolating/drawing improper conclusions (we are not drawing conclusions, certainly not at this point, we are just trying to see if we agree on the "how many people answered negatively to the religiosity question?", as we don't appear to agree on that)

All we are doing here, for now, is to see if we agree on whether the calculation is correct and obvious.

Let me unpack your comment: So with you clumping 45% into "not religious" is NOT "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age..." because the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" are NOT obvious!

You are conflating two things here: (i) Whether the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" is obvious or not (to the interviewed and/or the reader). (ii) Whether they answered negatively or positively to the religiosity question.

These are two very different questions. You are addressing (i), while I am trying to addressing (ii). The (ii) is I think well represented by the table, and I think is clear, while (i) is philosophizing/speculation, which we all agree we should not do. Please state your view on (ii): Do we know how many people answered negatively to the religiosity question? It's that simple.

By the way, although your essay skills are high, you are still flunking that 8th grade math test. Jmv2009 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also do not make insults here. I already told you how to provide a solution, but in you making interpretations on a Pew report which does not even discuss nonreligosity to extract your interpretation of non religiosity is disingenuous and in fact WP:SYN says: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."


 * You are not providing an actual quote or anything for your lumping. How does people answering no “Do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?” equate to they are "not religious" in anyway? This is common mistake for people who are unfamiliar with the sociology of religion or with surveys on such matters. To go from "not a religious person" to assume "not religious" is the problem. If people were to say no to a question like, “Do you think of yourself as a jealous person, or not?” would you all of a sudden assume automatically that they are not jealous in anyway at all throughout their lives? "Religious person" is an identity, being "religious" is behavior or attribute. Here is an easy example of how identity and behavior/attributes are usually not congruent. Pew did an analysis of people who do not have belief in God and found that most do not self-identify as "atheist" . They wrote "According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, 5% of American adults say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit, but only about a quarter (24%) of these nonbelievers actually call themselves atheists." Since the majority of those who lack a belief in god, do not identify as "atheists", does that mean they actually do believe in God? Of course not. This is the type of analysis that spreads apart the variables, not lumping them like you are trying to do.


 * So obviously definitions do matter!! These are not routine calculations because the understandings are not linear. Identity vs behavior do not match at all and many people actually conflate the two. People have have contradictory identities and different behaviors. So this is part of the issue.


 * In sociology of religion; beliefs, belonging and behavior are not the same. I expect you to do a better analysis of the report. The solution is simple, as I have said many times already does the source say that 45% are not religious EXPLICITLY? I have quoted the source in broad context since the situation is complex and have stuck to the source. Pew is actually more careful on how they word these reports because they know that there are many dynamics at play. Lumping can be an issue on wikipedia because you can easily re-lump the numbers like this: 27%+54%= 81% of the US population is either religious or spiritual. I would object to that kind of lumping too, though it is just as valid as your lumping. Half empty or half full? I think that the numbers should be kept like the source has them - separated to prevent subjective lumping by editors. Let readers interpret how they want with the separate variables (as the source has them) and they can even looks at the source directly, we should not interpret the data into lumps because it inflates numbers and mixes the variables too much. Please continue on the irreligion talk page next time since this really has nothing to do with me and there is no need to get personal.


 * Pretty much the source is in the article and the complex interaction is already there too. All this is about is an incorrect lumping in an info box, which the source does not do - they keep things seperate. Why you are wasting much ink over it is beyond me.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

CindyRoleder
Hi, I noticed at Talk:Irreligion that you had identified an IP editor as a sockpuppet of blocked user Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder. I believe you're correct, and I've reported them. I've also "hatted" their comments. In the future, it would be great if you could report any suspected sockpuppets to WP:SPI and then ignore them, rather than expressing your suspicions on talk pages, or carrying on conversations with them. See, and the other information on that page. Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your actions and recommended wikipages for future instances! I will follow your lead for future suspicions. I will add some feedback on the sock puppet page.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Signature
Hello Ramos1990. Per WP:SIGN it would be helpful if your signature agreed with your user name: The name User:Huitzilopochtli1990 appears to be available if you want to change your name. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For sure will look into these options. Appreciate the input. I kept the 1990 to help others know that it is me. If you click on my signature, it links to my page too.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am closing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder regarding the two IPs that you commented on. If you notice the same IPs editing at Irreligión, you might inform es:Usuario:Taichi and see if any sanctions are appropriate on eswiki. Global blocks are not easy to arrange, but we can work with specific Wikipedias. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)