User talk:Ramos1990/Archive 2

A friendly warning about future 'talk-bloat' antic-tactics
In all, you repeated the same empty ad-hominem accusations (with the same diffs) close to twenty times in that thread, even after being warned about it several times.
 * In the future, should you again attempt to pollute a content-discussion in that way, it will be going straight to ANI with those diffs as evidence (as well as the diff for this warning message).
 * Conclusion: one wikipedian can throw all the 'adjectives' they like at another (as a misleading display), but its their behaviour that speaks louder that words in the end. This is your third time (at least, with me) trying this, and that is quite enough. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:ThePromenader, nobody issued any warnings on me directly there and certainly no one took any action against me except you - who did not like my exposing of your falsehoods and bad history of failed consensuses about the matter at hand. No one agreed with your blind no-quotes-from-source analysis proposition either despite you offering it so many times. You even tried to censor me completely - which made you look very bad since you actively tried to manipulate the discussion. It was so clear that it was you who was abusive that even another editor stepped in and reverted you on censoring my quote verification rebuttals and evidences. When you engage in discussions you are vulnerable to editors examining and critiquing your claims. If you cannot handle responses and counter evidences then you should not engage.


 * Also your cry of pollution is pretty dumb. Considering that on the RFC, NOR Noticeboard, talk page, and now this Fringe Noticeboard no one sided with you, it seems that you pollute yourself quite often. You keep on trying to hog discussions almost like a dictator at times (you don't hear others - only yourself - and you try to reply to everything others say if they disagree with you) and you push your conspiracy theories way too much without any empirical support or reliable sources and you really make short discussions longer than they are supposed to be. Multiple times in multiple discussions editors have told you to listen and to not ignore the comments of others. But it seems you have a hard time with this. You already did and ANI on me once BTW and it failed for the same reasons. I don't fear ANIs because I do not censor editors, I try to reply to their concerns, I usually submit to consensuses, and I do not push conspiracy theories on others. I also do not have a bad rep with any editors here. I have more evidence on you from this discussion such as your 3 attempts at censoring another editor, FORUMSHOPPING, ignoring relevant discussion, ignoring all other previous consensuses when you raised the issues extensively on your RFC, the NOR Noticeboard, numerous talk  pages, and now this Fringe Noticeboard. You have had so much input and yet you persist in your agenda pushing. There is a reason why no one defended you. I think that many editors saw what was going on.


 * I hope you have a great day.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 
 * The entire point is that the claims are absent from the sources. No 'conspiracy' possible, and this demonstrates itself.
 * ...straight out of 'retirement' to that board, and removing comments and 'evidences' to off-topic ad-hominem behaviour related issues, especially after multiple warnings, is a matter of wikipedia policy, not 'censorship'.T P  ✎ ✓ 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a strange sort of belief that the last thing anyone reads is the only thing a reader will remember - just saying (a misrepresentative) something doesn't make it 'true', and, again, behaviour (the record) speaks louder than words do, so please stop WP:GAMEing other contributors and admins (even if it does work). Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 08:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not if it works, its that editors are not stupid. They certainly can read and can see the evidences themselves. They are not short attention-spanned and can see what is going on. It is very simple - if you step aside, I will step aside on these issues too.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And again 'getting personal': it's the claims-to-sources that stand to testing, not contributors. If whatever you are 'protecting' stood to testing, there would be no 'need' to resort to such rhetoric and such tactics - and that speaks for itself. T P  ✎ ✓ 09:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I already addressed my open and transparent verification that in the Fringe Noticeboard multiple times times. No point in repeating further on it from my first comment here too. Really it is you trying to prove things to yourself (similar to how Holocaust denialists always act like holocaust scholarship has to show that holocaust revisionism is false). No one else is convinced of your "sectarian" conspiracy theory since no one even detailed or supported such a thing. The evidence speaks for itself. There is no tactic, only responses and counter evidences. Look at the WP:NOR noticeboard you made . That entry carries more weight since it was the best spot to address your concerns directly. I was not even involved in that you explained your views clearly and yet look at the comments of the other editors on your proposition. Just read it through dude - it was unanimous. You gonna accuse me of sabotaging or poisoning there too? I was not there so...&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you just repeated claims.
 * The record shows a history of contributors finding problems with the article as well (last edits were reverted by you immediately after, a display of WP:OWN issues), so making it seem that I am a 'disillusioned loner' is (purposely) misleading as well.
 * I may be the most persistant (in my on-average once-a year attentions?), and it is probably for that that you have been doggedly following and trying to sabotage every request for wider attention I have made (and probably networking like-minded 'reinforcements' to this end, too). In fact, this with the above 'if you step aside' comment (that the record now shows) demonstrates purposely disruptive WP:BATTLE-ish behaviour that might be quite worthy of sanctions: again, it's about the content, not the contributor. Since this is far from the first time you've been warned about this, the next occurance will be a straight-to-ANI. And by all means, feel free to open one on me.
 * But to conclude, if all your claims were true, there would be no need for such 'dissuasive' antics, and a topic-claim-source verification would demonstrate that there actually is no issue with the article. Yet your continued dogged disruptions speak for themselves.
 * Sooner or later, that verification is going to happen, and that, too, will speak for itself. You can choose to join in the content discussion, but that will be up to you. Cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 08:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These are your evidences? Considering how many times you have repeated your "problem" in so many places and other editors have already looked at your "sectarian" theory it should be clear as to whether others believe it or not. Also, most of the issues have already been addressed by now since now the article has better sourcing, quotes extracted, and at least more transparent and clear. Most of the complaints have been about neutrality of some type, but that can be fixed with looking for sources that balance out the topic. None of the links you have, however, show that anyone really sees a "sectarian" conspiracy theory. That is unique to you. Most editors just need to be reminded that atheism and state atheism are not the same - just as Islam and Islamic states are not synonymous nor are Judaism and Jewish State. They are separate things.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some can be buried in evidence and still deny it exists, and your 'conspiracy theory' is a strawman.
 * In a nutshell: nobody is denying that the 'state atheism' concept exists, but as it is one absent from most all historical consensus and mainstream, reliable sources (and the fact that few of the article's sources even mention the term (or anything like it) is the evidence of this), the fact that the article does not attribute it to its creators, all while presenting it as 'common knowledge', puts the article at fault. And that's it. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These are your evidences? Considering how many times you have repeated your "problem" in so many places and other editors have already looked at your "sectarian" theory it should be clear as to whether others believe it or not. Also, most of the issues have already been addressed by now since now the article has better sourcing, quotes extracted, and at least more transparent and clear. Most of the complaints have been about neutrality of some type, but that can be fixed with looking for sources that balance out the topic. None of the links you have, however, show that anyone really sees a "sectarian" conspiracy theory. That is unique to you. Most editors just need to be reminded that atheism and state atheism are not the same - just as Islam and Islamic states are not synonymous nor are Judaism and Jewish State. They are separate things.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some can be buried in evidence and still deny it exists, and your 'conspiracy theory' is a strawman.
 * In a nutshell: nobody is denying that the 'state atheism' concept exists, but as it is one absent from most all historical consensus and mainstream, reliable sources (and the fact that few of the article's sources even mention the term (or anything like it) is the evidence of this), the fact that the article does not attribute it to its creators, all while presenting it as 'common knowledge', puts the article at fault. And that's it. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope we Can we work together for a Compromise on the Wording?
Hello Ramos1990 I hope you are having a great Day or night wherever you are, you said something very Important that shows we are on the same page. On the talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union (The fact that death toll estimates vary among the sources shows that there is no consensus on the actual number of people who died among historians). But for gulag deaths there are for all people Christians Political dissidents etc.

It is estimated that the combination of very long working hours, harsh climatic and other working conditions, inadequate food, and summary executions killed tens of thousands of prisoners each year. Western scholarly estimates of the total number of deaths in the Gulag in the period from 1918 to 1956 ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 million. https://www.britannica.com/place/Gulag

New studies using declassified Gulag archives have provisionally established a consensus on mortality and "inhumanity." The tentative consensus says that once secret records of the Gulag administration in Moscow show a lower death toll than expected from memoir sources, generally between 1.5 and 1.7 million (out of 18 million who passed through) for the years from 1930 to 1953. https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/ou_press/golfo-alexopoulos-illness-and-inhumanity-in-stalin-s-gulag-i363rKPYOp

Timothy Snyder who is a historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, and the Holocaust and is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University and a Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum said

It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive. Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit fewer. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/

For the 2 Sources it says on page 4 1921–50, Christians die in Soviet prison camps 15,000,000 1950–80, Christians die in Soviet prison camps 5,000,000

But for the overall death toll the Historical Consensus is around 1 Million deaths for all people that were Imprisoned.

That is why I think if we change it to, (Many Christian perished from the Stalinist Terror in the Soviet Union) Since the majority of atrocities happened under Stalin holodomor,Great-Terror,Katyn-massacre.

it will be following what reputable scholars say about the death toll for all gulag deaths.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, would not mind working with you. I hear your reasoning but it is about the sources available, not our individual analysis per se. In Wikipedia we are not reporting our analyses or painting a picture of reality, we are reporting what multiple reliable sources actually say on the topic. For the article, the sources have to specify Christians not the whole population. From the sources you have mentioned above, none specify Christians. And the total number of victims section from the excess mortality show no real consensus on the total amounts either. There are many different opinions on this it seems. If you were to find a source that said that very few Christians were persecuted, it should be ok to add on to the article or amend the wording.


 * I think that the persecution article encapsules the whole Soviet era from 1917 to the fall of the Soviet union, whereas the sources you are mentioning fall just under Stalin's time. The solution is very simple. Find reliable sources that give lower estimates of Christians and that could create a wider range. You have to be careful not to insert conclusions that are not found in the sources or creating original research. As far as I can tell, the two sources on the article right now give numbers on Christians - so they are relevant there.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ramos1990 I am Glad we Could Come to a solution to this, I want to say I am not a Soviet Union apologist I condemn everything that they did to there people. When I saw Christians die in Soviet prison camps 15 million and 5 million for the years of 1921-1980 with the estimate showing most of the deaths happened under stain Since he died in 1953. I was like Data shows from Reputable sources shows its lower for overall deaths for gulag. I will take your suggestion and find Sources that give estimates based on archival date and shows a breakdown of Christians killed.


 * Then we can work on Incorporating it in to the opening of the articleJack90s15 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jack90s15 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin
Your recent editing history at Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Railfan23 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for making this a bigger Issue then it had to be
Hello Ramos1990 I hope you are having a great Day or night wherever you are, I am making my apology public so everyone will now I am not ashamed to say I was wrong. I hope we can both Move Forward in in working Together effective,

For my recent Bold edit I did that as a way to Fix the Issue that all started with wording ("Some scholars still assert) that is why I did a Bold edit to Fix the problem that arose from it.

For your input on this do you think this Fixes the Issue we had with Both of are concerns?Jack90s15 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Follow up
Ramos1990 I hope you are having a great Day or night wherever you are,

For the First page we were talking about No one as said anything on the talk page you Explained BRD and Since we discussed this previously. Would you like to discuss the wording that I am proposing with the sources I have? and I am sorry for making it get out of hand can we start fresh for a new month and for the decade.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have problem with it
Ramos1990 I don't have problem with it I was trying to Explain how we reached a consensus on the wording that was accidental that I pinged you with that my bad on thatJack90s15 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

what happened Was they messaged me about it and like I said I Don't have a problem with it we reached consensusJack90s15 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Mole Day!
 Happy Mole Day 6.022x1023  Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.


 * What is this?
 * Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro.


 * What you can do!


 * Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects
 * Expand articles listed here
 * Improve science articles
 * Sign the guestbook or place User WikiProject Science on your user page.
 * Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here


 * Similar events


 * Pi day
 * DNA day
 * Evolution Day
 * Yuri's Night
 * Square Root Day


 * See also


 * Observances about science
 * Observances in October

- Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe/Unsubscribe -

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects. Wikiproject Science

Wikiproject Chemistry

Wikiproject Physics

WikiProject History of Science Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking for some support
Hi,

Greetings, Just came across your interesting user profile. I was looking for some support in following areas.


 * Please do have a look at upcoming articles Draft:Ex-Muslims along with Draft talk:Ex-Muslims and also Superstitions in Muslim societies.

If any of above topics interest you, then pl. do contribute towards expansion of the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello there
You deleted my section on religious wars and no it wasn't useless. It was infact beneficial as it pointed out the historical narrative from which religious wars existed. Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Kwesi Yema. I hope all is good with you. I stated that it was redundant. There already is a source in the previous paragraph that quantifies religious historical conflicts. Furthermore, national geographic does not look like good source to make a claim like this, especially since religion is a modern invention, not a historical concept that people in the ancient world had. Better sourcing is needed like an academic text. If you wish, you can discuss the issue further in the article's talk page. That is the place to discuss things pertaining to that particular article. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. The context was already summarized as describing that a percentage of recorded wars were backed by religious motives. That is true. However, I have more sources as well and if needed I can drop it. But, I think I get you now, it won't even be necessary. Thanks for the correction. Kwesi Yema (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Verify your claim that my reference was not reliable
From the 1939 book, Democracy and Wold Dominion by American historian Edwin Schoonmaker: "Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: 'According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds--perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches...In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction...the Government needs the location for a large building," (American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the "opiate of the people" had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia." (p. 211) {82.1.219.198 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)}
 * Hi . Appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts. It looks like another editor reverted your recent add over the same information. The issue is that the source does not meet the requirements for a reliable source. See WP:RS for how this works. For one, it is an old source from 1939. Second, it makes a big claim (no synagogues affected?) and for that you need better sourcing than that. A journal article, or an academic book can make up for that. Furthermore, most of the atrocities and damaging policies came to light in later decades, not so early on. The issue is the claim is too big for just one old source. You need better sourcing. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ramos1990 Rejection of your claim that the claim is too old as being a worthy criterion to reject my source.

{82.1.219.198 (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)}
 * I did not say the claim was old. I said your source was old and that you need better sourcing from modern scholars to make that claim. Jews were persecuted in the Soviet Union so you really need better sourcing to substantiate that claim. No need to talk to me here anymore since another editor reverted your same source. If you wish to discuss the matter further do it at the talk page for that article. Here is the link to it Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. You would need to start a discussion there and you can make your case there to reach a consensus to reinsert the claim and source. You have to convince editors there.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism
Dear Ramos1990, seeing that you recently added a source from this journal to Richard Carrier, I was wondering if you have access to other issues of the journal. I'm specifically looking for something in Vol 17, No 2 (2009). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Good question. I do not have direct access to that journal but I did find the article from Carrier online with google search . You can try google scholar . Here is the link to the issue you seek by the way. Which one of the articles are you looking for? Ramos1990 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am looking for this one. Unfortunately, a university library near me has only a limited subscription for issues 2012 onwards. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was looking for that one for more than half an hour. It looks quite hard to find. Do you have a ResearchGate account? You can request it from the author there . That is probably your best option aside form paying for it directly. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, Ramos1990. I'll probably have to buy it but that happens sometimes. Thank you for taking the time to look into this, and keep up your good work here on Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI on Moses
See here. The user responsible for the former wording was recently unblocked.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Will look into it. Though I rarely edit that page.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding archive bot to talk page
Hi! I saw you added archiving settings to Talk:Conflict thesis. However, because you copied them from another talk page (I guess), the template had the wrong setting for the archive parameter, which means the archiving wouldn't have worked. I've fixed it there, but in the future, it's probably easier for you to copy the settings from User:MiszaBot/config (use the "copy and paste for easy use" code). That will automatically work in almost all cases. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right! I usually change that when adding an archive bot, but I forgot this time to change that part. I use the one form other pages that I know worked. Thanks for the link.Ramos1990 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflict thesis
You have recently removed a thread I started on Talk:Conflict_thesis with "not a forum" being the only explanation. My comment was relevant to the article and how it was presented, and I raised issues that have been previously raised on the talk page but have been ignored. My concerns are with the fact that the subject of the article is a religious apologist talking point, and the article itself is heavily biased in favor of religious apologia and historical revisionism. As well as the fact that the article on Relationship_between_religion_and_science already covers everything this article does. In fact, the notion of "conflict thesis" is a very particular and non neutral phrasing on what is the general consensus on the reliationship between religion and science. Your removal of that thread was not justified. I'm going to assume good faith and that this was a misunderstanding. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. It states "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article" and also "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)."


 * From what you wrote, you did not really raise any issues. You merely said that you did not like the article and that the article looked like an apologist page. The purpose of talk pages is to improve articles with tangible suggestions, not express perceptions of a topic. If you have academic sources that say that the conflict thesis is widely believed by experts in the history of science and religion then you may have something to contribute to that page, but a mere opinion of the status of that article is not an attempt at improving an article. Many articles on wikipedia are not written to anyone's liking, but since they have sourced content (which is the basis of wikipedia) then the views stand irrespective if they like them or not.


 * As far as I can see, the Conflict thesis page and the relationship between religion and science page cite academic sources discussing these matters and the consensus among scholars is that the conflict thesis is both incorrect and outdated (numerous sources are already provided in those articles for those claims). The general consensus is that it is complex.


 * The "conflict thesis" is a historical thesis and has failed in explaining the relationship between science and religion - as even the super anti-religious rationalwiki admits . Perhaps you are thinking that the "conflict thesis" refers to just views that science ad religion conflict today. But that is actually a different topic that is addressed with numerous current studies from sociology and history already too under the "Modern views" section.


 * Hope this helps.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I did raise an issue, one that others have raised before me, namely that the article is biased. It is the article that needs to provide proper evidence that modern scientists do not believe this "conflict thesis", and as multiple people have pointed out on the talk page, but were consistently ignored, the article fails to provide convincing proof of this claim.
 * Also, the point of contention isn't even whether modern scientists believe in the conflict thesis, but rather that the term "conflict thesis" isn't even used outside of religious apologist circles. I have yet to hear any scientist describe the historical conflict between religion and science as a "thesis".
 * As for the "complxity" of the relationship between religion and science, it can be described thusly: 1) religion and science are inherently antithetical (as is common knowledge, as claims made by religion have been repeatedly debunked by science), 2) religious organizations supported the advancement of science when it benefited them, 3) religious organizations actively sabotaged scientific progress, whenever science contradicted their dogma and 4) religions (christianity specifically) periodically adapt to scientific progress, to retain credibility and relevance, as without laxing their doctrines and their attitude towards what is common knowledge, they would've gone extinct centuries ago. I don't see anything complex here.
 * Many of the claims made under modern perceptions do little besides make assertions. I could dissect the entire thing, but others have already done it. The talk page, especially the archived conversations raise many issues with the article that have been completely unadressed. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources for those claims? The article does not need to prove anything to anyone. Wikipedia is based on the views of what reliable sources say. Period. See WP:SOURCETYPES for what types of sources are considered reliable. If you have reliable sources for those claims then you may have something to contribute. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. Wikipeida is not a forum or a place to debate among editors. It is a place to cite reliable sources on the matter. For example, here is a study from a peer-reviewed journal of scientists at elite universities on the matter (Ecklund, Elaine Howard; Park, Jerry Z. (2009). "Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists?". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 48 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01447.x).


 * Other editors seem to just complain without providing reliable sources so that is why not much can be done. There is nothing else to discuss on this.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Previously I had approached your talk page with an article expansion request for different article, this time approaching with request for a little different one, usually I do approach users for expansion from some what related topic changes list for example recently you seem to have edited Christ myth theory, hope you would not mind approaching with such article expansion request.

Requesting you to visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies and inputs and expansion help for the same.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Note
You say that Galileo was allowed to publish later works. Actually, Galileo's "Two new sciences" was published in 1638 in a Protestant part of Holland.
 * Copies were sold in Rome, with no prosecution of Galileo.

Countries by irreligion talk page
, the title of this page is irreligion by country. The section “countries and regions” is about irreligion and has different studies from different years. So how can the next section “by population” only include atheists? The description in the section says “the percentage of non-religious people according to Zuckerman” so of course I can include a column for the amount of non religious people according to Pew.Foorgood (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

World Religion Database
Thank you sir I remember debating and then compiling the Irreligion tables but remember they are arguing against ARDA and World Religion Database but WRD is also called reliable by those university sources not just Arda. Foorgood (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes I remember. I agree with you that ARDA and WRD are both usable sources on wikipedia - like any other survey. It has good academic standing like you mentioned. Feel free to contribute more if you wish. You brought in a many good sources to show that both are used by academics. I have verified that such is the case.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed I basically checked out of the Noticeboard discussion because I kept having to repeat how the university library websites call it a good source then I insulted AEO and the rest so I got reprimanded. He continues to repeat the lie that WRD is the currently the same as WCD and therefore controlled by Protestant missionaries when it is not the case there is no connection anymore WRD is ran by Boston University and published by Brill as you said.Foorgood (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there is an RFC on it now . Since you were part of the discussion and provided great insights on it, I thought you should be notified of it.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you sir am I allowed to vote no? Or I cannot since I started the discussion. Foorgood (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you are allowed to vote on it since you did not make the rfc. Hope that helps. I may chime in if I have some extra time.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I along with other users have begun to respond to the RFC.Foorgood (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I responded there.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Update - RFC - sources (World Religion Database/World Christian Database, also published by the Association of Religion Data Archives and the Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures) are considered reliable sources for wikipedia and can co-exist with all other sources with attribution. Vast majority against depreciation - only 2 of the 4 yeses were for all, 1 on World Religion Database only, and 1 on Pew only. Only one No said caution on Pew. Not a license to remove such sources since most did not support collective depreciation and did not object to most either. Also preference is not requirement. Most of wikipedia has mixed sources either way with attribution solving the issue.

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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3RR
You seem to be engaged in an edit war on Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted, even if you believe you are right. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.

In addition, you have exceeded three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (3RR) on Historical Jesus which generally results in an automatic 24-hour block. The edits you are reverting are not vandalism or otherwise an exception to the 3RR policy. If you find yourself in this situation again, please step away from the edit conflict or make use of an available dispute resolution option rather than violating 3RR. If someone else is edit warring, you can report the issue to WP:ANEW, request protection of the page, or both. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that User:Daniel Quinlan. That is why I sought page protection for both pages before 3RR since I saw the edits were becoming disruptive and persistent. I even left edit war warnings to prevent this. I did slip on the one page you mentioned. Very sorry about that. I usually do not exceed 3 reverts, but I did mention the talk FAQ, which addressed their issue, in my last edit summary to try to redirect to a solution in the talk page. I sought page protection because the user used multiple IPs.


 * Anyways, thanks for the page protection. Would you be able to restore to the last edit before the edit war? I was just restoring content per WP:BRD on both pages.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand why you did it, but I would strongly encourage you to try to avoid reaching the limit of three reversions (except in cases of clear vandalism or other clear exceptions described in WP:3RR). I'd also recommend reading WP:BRR. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)