AC+79 3888

Feel free to leave me a message. I will reply on your talk page, unless you request otherwise, and I would prefer it if other users replied here. Thanks.

Discussion at Talk:The_God_Delusion#Grammar

Please note, and feel free to contribute towards, the discussion at Talk:The_God_Delusion#Grammar regarding the use of apostrophes. WLU (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Noticed the appearance, and disappearance of text on my talk page, no doubt by now you're reading the section in the God Delusion. Please discuss there, as there are multiple editors besides myself with an opinion. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation/Creationism

the correct term is creation. If you think the correct term is creationism, please explain why that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothmas (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's widely known to be creationism. See the Wikipedia article on the subject here. Alternatively, perform a quick Google search. AC+79 3888 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello AC+79 3888. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The biography of Richard Dawkins should achieve FA status. I think we should work together. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Secular humanism and Humanism (life stance)

Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? I agree with you— it is more accurate to call Dawkins a secualar humanist. I think the articles Secular humanism and Humanism (life stance) should be merged. What's your views? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hello AC+79 3888. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for FA status. You might be interested in this. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. However, more contributions are required. Please keep working on the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep working away at it as quick as I can. I added a bit more there, and I'll try to proof-read some of the article later on, as it was claimed that there are inconsistencies in the use of punctuation. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Italics

Hey there AC. Don't forget your italics for publications like The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing and New Scientist. Richard001 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello AC+79 3888. I have replied on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hello AC+79 3888. Please visit the talk page of Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation

Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? In the citation template, you did the following:

author=The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science[1]

In 'author', we should put the name of a person, not organisation. You should have used 'publisher'. I think you should look at the following templates:

• {{cite web}}
• {{cite book}}
• {{cite journal}}
• {{cite news}}
• {{citation}}

Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Few things...

Hello AC. How are you? Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. I would like to tell you something. Years usually not wikilinked when they are alone. Guidelines recommend not wikilinking to years when they are alone, without specific context and rationale for linking to them. Hence it's "(2007)", not "(2007)". On the other hand, full dates should always be wikilinked so as to ensure the date will be rendered as formatted according to the reader's date preferences; hence, "(April 4, 2008)", not "(April 4, 2008)". And, keep up the good work. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hello AC+79 3888. How are you? An IP has once again vandalized the page of Richard Dawkins. It is so irritating. I think we should request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should submit it for peer review. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. I think we should download some images of Richard Dawkins. What do you think? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hello AC. Thank you for finding the image. We may have to work on references. I think the article is ready for the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rationalism

Hello AC. I think you are a rationalist. Some atheist believe in pseudoscience such as parapsychology. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you are a rationalist. I think you should include your name on Category:Rationalist Wikipedians. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now your user page looks great! I also like the image of Pale Blue Dot. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. Please look at the following line:

"He has also been called "the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell",[9] and has been compared to German biologist Ernst Haeckel.[10]"

I think this line should be deleted. It is unnecessary. The line was also critized by other users. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. You should have removed only the last line. I have included the following line:

"Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[7][8] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of evolution."

I hope everything is alright. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FAs are the best articles on Wikipedia. We have to listen to criticism and try to make the article as good as possible. Please give your best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. I have removed antitheism from the lead. Sources don't suggest that he is an antitheist. Look at the following line:

"In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is well-known for his outspoken atheism."

People want everything to be correct and well-sourced. I hope you will agree with me. Please look at the article. If you make any major change, please inform me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, I have made another change. I have removed "outspoken" from the lead. Look at the following line:

"In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is a well-known atheist.[3][4][5]"

What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, the sources do suggest that he is outspoken and an antitheist. However, here on Wikipedia, the sources must say "he is an outspoken atheist/antitheist". And, we must remember about NPOV. Our work is quite difficult. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, we have to try as hard as possible! Please give your best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. Do you have the book The Extended Phenotype? I don't have any book written by Richard Dawkins. The Extended Phenotype is a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology. References from the book can be included in the article. If you have that book, please include some references in the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have other books of Dawkins? You can add book references! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. Please look at the following:

"In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies as a delusion—as a fixed false belief."

Do you have the book The God Delusion? I think we need a reference fir this. In which page Dawkins argued that God almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies as a delusion—as a fixed false belief? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! We have to work hard. It is difficult to get support! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. Thank you for your effort. I also feel that you and I should work in other articles. Some users are pushing their POV by including the views of Pope Benedict XVI in the article agnosticism. It is quite inappropriate. What's your view? You are invited to make comments at Talk:Agnosticism. I also think that some people are pushing their POV in the article Francis Collins (geneticist). We have to watch these articles. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally undeserved, when ...

you guys are doing all the hard work, but thanks for showing your appreciation, it is important to do so, Merzul (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Hello AC. I have made some changes in the article Richard Dawkins. In the section Publication, I removed the table. I have also added cite book templates.

What is the name of the publisher of the book The God Delusion? I think it is Bantam Books. However, in references, it is Transworld Publishers. And, loction=United Kingdom is wrong. In that parameter, you should put the place of publication. See: {{cite book}}. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AC. I think this FA nomination will fail. It is very disappointing. However, even if the nomination fails, we have to keep on working on the article. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FA nomination failed!

Hello AC. I have a bad news. The FA nomination of Richard Dawkins has failed. I would like to thank you for your contributions and your support. We have to improve many things. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Invisible Pink Consolation Prize
		I present the Invisible Pink Consolation Prize to AC+79 3888 and Masterpiece2000 for their brave attempts to prove that "Richard Dawkins" almost certainly contains no flaws. Merzul (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Merzul! I tried! :D AC+79 3888 ^{[ talk ]} 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins

Hello AC. It is very disappointing. However, we have to look towards the future.

AC, we should nominate the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status for after two months. We have to inform many people about the article and do everything possible to improve the article. I am determined to make sure that the article Richard Dawkins achieve the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Author's name

Hello AC. Look at the following:

Grafen, Alan; Mark Ridley (eds.) (2006). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-929116-0.

In this case, only the surname of the first author should come first. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins

Hello AC! How are you? Do you have the book Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think? I think we should include some information from the book. Please find some information from the book and include those information in the article with references. I think that would be very useful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fine! I hope you will find a copy of the book. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins, again

Hello AC. Please look at the article Richard Dawkins. What more can we do? Well, references from the book Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think is important. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Greetings AC+79 3888 - thanks for sorting out the Dawkins List. Have just added my two euro-cents' worth on the corresponding talk page. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Selfish Gene edit and question

I wanted to return to an edit made to this article, [2]. I think I have found it; it was by you earlier in 2008, although my memory of it is a bit different from the reality. In any case, I'm wondering whether you would agree with a statement more or less like 'genes will only "help" exact copies of themselves, not genes that are just very similar'. Richard001 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's correct that they would only 'help' exact copies. For example, what if there was a synonymous mutation or a non-synonymous mutation that didn't have any phenotypic effect? By what mechanism could such genes discriminate self from non-self? Richard001 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football

Time to get this kick started again.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Davin O'Neill

The article Davin O'Neill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable footballer. To merit a standalone article, he or she must meet the criteria stated at WP:NFOOTBALL , or the general notability guideline. This player passes neither of them.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Davin O'Neill

The article Davin O'Neill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Plays in the second tier of League of Ireland football - not a fully professional league, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Davin O'Neill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Davin O'Neill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davin O'Neill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:AtheistIrelandlogoLORES.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AtheistIrelandlogoLORES.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 25 November 2013 (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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Loilogo09.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Loilogo09.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)