User talk:Laurence Boyce/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Seeing as nobody ever welcomed me to Wikipedia, I have decided to welcome myself:

Welcome!

Hello, Laurence Boyce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I do hope you enjoy the place and decide to stay. However, please do not bait the Jesus Freaks, the Mad Mullahs, or the Red Sea Pedestrians, any more than is strictly necessary.

Laurence Boyce 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of article River Out of Eden

I was looking through some of the articles on books by Richard Dawkins, and noticed the one on River Out of Eden. I see that you have made the majority of contributions to this article, and added a good deal of material. However, I have added a tag to the article explaining that it is not "written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry". There is some good information on the preferred layout and tone for articles here and here.

The main reason I listed it is because it currently consists of drawn-out explanation of the book's topics, and a large number of quotes. This isn't particularly attractive or easy to read, for somebody who does not necessarily want a lot of detail. It therefore needs editing to be brought in line with wikipedia's standards. Please feel free to make edits to improve the article, or post a message on the article's talk page or my talk page if you have any questions. I'll also try to do some when I get chance. Thanks. Mushin ^talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finished rewriting the article, according to my own criteria, as I could not find any official guide. I just wrote it as a summary of the five chapters, using my own understanding after reading the book for the second time. I did not always present ideas in each chapter in the same order they were presented in the book, because some chapters were not really written at Dawkins' usual level. Chapter two was particularly horrendous; I presented it in a more logical fashion, but kept all facts and statements to sources from this one chapter. I includes some of your original text in the new version, and I moved the previous version to the talk page. Feel free to move more back into the main article when you have a chance. Fred Hsu 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks Fred, it looks good. I feel it may need reducing slightly, but I won't do anything soon – see what others think. Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About the "disappearing" images

Hi, I saw you posted a question about image deletion on Gmaxwell's talk page. You are in fact not allowed to upload so called "fair use" images for your userpage (images with a free content license and public domain images are fine though), it's explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy (point #9)), and any such fair use images that are not used in an article will be deleted on sight after 7 days (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I5), that's what Gmaxwell's bot is doing. It's nothing personal, it's just that since we are supposed to be making a free licensed ensyclopedia we want to keep the use of such "unfree" images to a bare minimum, therefore they are limited to articles where no free alternative exist only. --Sherool (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hello! I noticed that you had Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg shown on your user page. The image is uploaded under a fair use provision, and Wikipedia policy states that fair use images should not be displayed on any pages outside the main (article) namespace, including user pages. Would you mind removing the image or simply linking to it? (Add a ":" in from of the image, like this: [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]]) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I note that the policy in question is only one month old,[1] prior to that it was a guideline. In either case I regret to say that I will not comply, as the issues under the spotlight are simply too important.—Laurence Boyce 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. In any case, this has become widely accepted as policy, and Jimbo Wales has voiced support for this multiple times, if I remember correctly. You will note that it states clearly and unequivocally in the policy that "fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used... on user pages." By leaving the image on your user page, you are not only violating Wikipedia policy but putting Wikipedia at a legal risk. I will politely request again that you remove the image and comply with our policy; any and all fair use images should not be on user pages. Thank you for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you say, Wikipedia policy on this matter is now pretty clear, though I remain to be convinced that it is actually a workable policy. Once again, I regret to say that I will not comply. Should you (or another admin) edit my user page, I will not enter into a revert war, though I may try another tactic. Would a thumbnail be acceptable for instance?—Laurence Boyce 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. You are free you draw your own cartoons but I'm not sure they should be hosted on wikipedia servers unless we can find a use for them in the article namespace.Geni 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! No, showing the image, no matter what size, is not permissible. What you can do, however, is link to it: just copy the code in my first post, and it'll turn up like this: Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg, which links to the image. Showing any fair use images in your user page isn't allowing, but feel free to link. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, and with maximum respect towards Wikipedia and her administrators, I regret to say that I will not comply. Please edit my user page, or take other appropriate action.—Laurence Boyce 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Per your request, I've changed it to a link. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

About the topic

Laurence It is your right to keep the image or remove it. I would like to have a discussion on the topic you have started. You seem to have something against Islamic treatment of women. Let me clarify that I am not a muslim, but still I have a lot of respect for the way Islam treats women. The only criticism that can be levelled is that it considers men to be superior. Then which religion dosn't. How long will it take us to see us a lady Pope? If you ask me, I would say that women are treated better in Islam. Which other religion has provision for looking after women even after a divorce.—202.83.39.7 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We had a lady Pope some time ago. It was great.—Laurence Boyce 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sam Harris 1.jpg

Why did you remove the categories from this image? I've returned them for now, as we use the in Category:Neuroscience for keeping track of our related media. S e miconscious • talk 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit hasty. I suppose I removed them because I couldn't quite see why the cats were there in the first place. I feel the best way to organise images is as it's done on Commons, which is why I created this article before Christmas. However, soon after I created the article, copyright notices were placed on all the images, Commons policy being more restrictive as I'm sure you know. I was then expecting the images to disappear fairly rapidly, at which point I was going to reload what I needed to Wikipedia, but for whatever reason, they still seem to be there. As it happens, the cats on Harris have changed recently, and of course they may change again. (We've decided that he doesn't quite qualify as a neuroscientist yet, seeing as he's still doing his PhD.) So I guess that in general I just thought it was bad practice to have duplicated category information within the same wiki, which will inevitably drift out of sync.—Laurence Boyce 13:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins image improved Selfish Gene article

I think it did anyway. I'd be in favour of replacing it unless there was a clear reason to remove. I like the cover you put up better, it is the edition I have. Midgley 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the author photo is unnecessary, especially if he is only one click away. But please return it if you wish.—Laurence Boyce 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not necessary. I'll leave it and we'll see what happens. Midgley 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins AFD...

We might as well let it run its course, no? It won't be deleted and a precedent would be set for "speedy keep". (this was done at Evolution recently). That said, I guess removing it is ok by WP:SNOW. Mikker ^(...) 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted it before I saw this message. I'm not really sure what all these things mean to be honest. I just thought it was anonymous and bollocks.—Laurence Boyce 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an Article for Deletion notice... I think we should keep it (I'll go restore it). Go here if you'd like to vote. (I'm for "speedy keep"!) Mikker ^(...) 17:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Root of all evil?

It would probably be a good idea to get rid of some of the quotes, but I think those of Pastor Ted Haggard should be left in. Things like “some evolutionists would say…. that the eye just formed itself somehow” and how Rabbi Gluck pointed out that evolution is “just a theory” (this isn’t in yet) are two classic, recurring statements that anti-evolutionists use in an attempt to discredit evolution. Apart from those two statements I don’t think there are many more that need to be left in.

I have to agree with the goodies and baddies separation, but I changed it because this displayed a point of view.

I think you’ve done a good job with the article and you can remove most of the quotes so long as these important quotes (and maybe a short statement near each one about why they’re important) are left in.

Good job and thanks. Miller 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dawkin’s nickname, a play on Thomas Huxley’s nickname, is “Darwins rottweiler”. I think the teaching and interpretation of evolution in the United States is a very big issue to Dawkins and he mentions Haggards attitude towards this issue in the very next scene; that is how Haggard believes evolution and the book of genesis should be shown as equivalent to one another in a science lesson.

I’m not trying to be biased in this sense; it’s just clear that this is a very big issue to Dawkins and the small number of quotes leading up to where Haggard called Dawkins “arrogant” (I couldn’t stop laughing after I heard that) are very important.

“this is not principally an article about controversies in evolutionary theory, though clearly that does come into it”

I profoundly disagree and it’s only one small section of the article I want to keep the same.

I removed the “goodies and baddies” remarks because I think tongue in cheek humour is not really appropriate.

Thanks for responding so quickly and I hope we can reach an agreement on this section of the article. Miller 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George. I think what I'm going to do is to put a small note on the talk page, not open a big discussion as such. Then I'm going to try to rework the Lourdes and Colorado Springs sections again – this time minus the irony and taking into account your concerns. Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Colorado Spings section takes out Haggard’s comments with regards to the laws of evolution (not to mention Haggard bringing in Dawkin’s grandchildren) and leaves in the fact that Haggard “responded well” to Dawkin’s comparison of his parish to a Nuremberg rally and the fact that Dawkins is “arrogant”. If that isn’t an NPOV violation I don’t know what is! I’m reinserting Haggards quote and explaining the accusation that Dawkins is arrogant simply for believing in scientific truth.

Dawkins is most well known for his defending of the theory of evolution and how religious leaders disclaim it with ridiculous arguments like “evolution claims the eye just formed itself somehow”. This is arguably the most important quote in the entire program and it is going back in and staying in.

As for your comments on my writing style I have a lot of experience, a good article and a barnstar to my name and I don’t appreciate having my contributions labelled as “rubbish” simply because you don’t like the facts that are mentioned. The last “contributions” before me were made by a Wikipedia bot, not a human user anyhow. Miller 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing do you like this new userbox I created using an animated gif from Uncyclopedia? Miller 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote about the eye just forming itself isn't "going back in." It was in there already because I took account of your views last time round! In fact you appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick on a number of fronts.

George, I love your userbox, and I love you, and I note your achievements elsewhere. But I stand by my view of these particular edits which I have reverted again. May I urge you to take your argument to the article talk page?

Laurence Boyce 13:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, that argument is clearly a lost cause. My most recent (and thankfully, last change) is removing the section about “intellectual arrogance”. Leaving the part about Dawkin’s supposed arrogance in while taking that of Haggards away is, in my opinion, an NPOV violation. So long as that last part stays out I’m happy.

p.s. can you post the responce here so I know when it's arrived. Thanks. Miller 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please let's discuss it on the article talk page. Laurence Boyce 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually reading what I’m putting down or you simply reverting them because I wrote them? What was wrong with my last changes? I’m afraid that I’m fed up with you immediately reverting my edits to the version you want. I have reported you to an administrator and I will wait for his opinion on the matter. Miller 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George. I have read every word of what you have written. I have reverted your changes again, and have provided an explanation on the article talk page. May I assure you of my continued affection and good wishes, and respectfully suggest that you may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Laurence Boyce 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here’s my contribution to the talk page: [2]. I would like to say that I am allowed to edit pages without asking permission or talking about it first and I think I’ll give this up as a lost cause. I’m surprised there’s been so much input from so many users on what is effectively an obscure two-part documentary on channel 4! Miller 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and banks. It wasn’t meant to be vandalism; I’m just getting fed up with you complaining whenever other people edit the article. All the other “lads” have the right to do this and your layout pretty much exactly matched those corny MasterCard adverts.

I don’t know about you, but I think the Colorado Springs and sectarian education sections are fine now. Agree? Miller 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven’t heard from you for a while. Do you believe the article is of acceptable quality with no apparent NPOV violations now? Miller 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Yousef al-Khattab

I strongly suggest you remove your personal comment from mainspace and move it to Hakamia's userspace talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?—Laurence Boyce 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, because personal comments do not belong in articlespace. We're a worldwide encyclopedia with non-user readership, and the content in articlespace oughtta be sparkling clean. Certainly personal conversations are inappropriate there. I dunno which policy to cite, but it's obvious... - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I must concur with Crazyrussian there. You are certainly welcome to say that on his user talk page. The talk page is only for the discussion of the article, not the user. Iola k ana|^T 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh but the comment is so much "funnier" where it is. I firmly believe that a good encyclopedia should be entertaining as well as informative. Come on guys, it's hard enough keeping the articles sensible – keeping the talk page sensible is pretty much mission impossible. Just see it as a bit of team-bonding, eh? If you make me remove it, Yousef will only take it as further evidence of the Wikimedia-Zionist conspiracy!—Laurence Boyce 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remove it already. This is silly. And yes, we wiki-zionists did conspire to take over the world, see WP:JEW - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't feel inclined to remove it. But I promise I will try not to let things get out of hand.—Laurence Boyce 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Genesis article POV

Hi, I just thought I'd bring your attention to the Genesis article. I believe it is POV - although the creationist view of Genesis is highly controversial, there is not the slightest mention of any common objections to it or criticism of it.

Please, to anyone interested, have a look at my comments on the Genesis talk page and join the debate. I am trying to get some balance to the article.-Neural 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Neural. I'm flattered that you might consider me as a sort of theological troubleshooter, but I really don't want to get involved with articles on works of fiction. We ought in a sense to be grateful to creationists – let's face it: without them the article would be fairly poor. I may however add a picture to the article. I like pictures. Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pretty much up on the idea myself, after being attacked by a random nutter on my talk page. I don't need psychotic fundamentalists vandalising my user page every ten seconds. Unless a lot of other people get behind the idea, I'll have to let it go for now. Good luck with the picture anyway! -Neural 03:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious studies books

"Religious studies" indicates only that a book addresses issues related to religion, without any respect to the reader's age, affiliation or lack thereof, and without having to be specific as to what religion is relevant to the discussion. Both the books you mentioned discuss the place of religion (or not) in society, so they could be considered religious studies books. By all means revert if you object. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: See Category:Books critical of religion. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pegship.—Laurence Boyce 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cam UL

Hi there, I've just noticed that in your "tidy up" of Cambridge University Library on 10 June you deleted a reference to the number of books/magazines deposited per year. Was that accidental, or was there a reason for it? Cheers, Jacky JackyR 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't accidental. I guess I felt that the annual intake for one particular year was not sufficiently interesting, and that in time the information would become dated. But maybe you were planning on updating it every year! Please return it if you wish.—Laurence Boyce 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, just felt it was a good snapshot. I'll think a bit about that, as it obviously struck you differently. JackyR | Talk 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To say it "struck" me is possibly going a bit far. I was merely "tidying up" at speed. I guess if I felt that half the acquisition was actually useful I might be more impressed. Must try to keep my prejudice at bay!—Laurence Boyce 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

History of science

By the way, if you're interested in alchemy (your user page), have you discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science yet? JackyR | Talk 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm afraid I'm not terribly interested in alchemy. It's just the pic of the day! As I understand it, alchemy has largely been discredited now.—Laurence Boyce 14:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, clearly not an area of expertise! Alchemy is usually called chemistry these days :-) JackyR | Talk 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates in Richard Harries article

Advice: How to use dates on Wikipedia Please don't change the dates. Most British people and many people internationally write dates as dd/mm/yy, eg, 12 December 1904. Most Americans use mm/dd/yy, eg, December 12 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use mm/dd/yy. If it is a British topic, use dd/mm/yy. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article written about their country and which was written in their local version of English is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

All dates usually have two square boxes around them, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences. Just hit that and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Type in WP:MS and you'll see the page.

If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. JRawle (Talk) 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit hazy about dates generally. When to link, when not. I wasn't trying to impose US style, I'm from the UK in fact. I had merely obtained the impression that this was the way it was done on most articles I have seen. No problem. My interest in Harries is very minor, and for all the wrong reasons! Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. When it comes to UK/US (spellings, dates, etc.) it's usually best to leave them as they are. That's the only rule for most articles. For UK-specific articles (such as this one) the convention is to use UK dates, i.e. 1 January 2000. In any case, full dates should always be linked, and then display according to individual users' preferences. JRawle (Talk) 14:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Brights

I noticed you included a link to the article on religiosity and intelligence in the Brights movement one. I couldn't help chuckling about that, considering it's my involvement in some of the "IQ society" AfDs of late, and my declared status as a bright, that sparked off the brights AfD. And it addresses the "concerns" of the AfD nominator rather well, too.

Thanks for your efforts! Byrgenwulf 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Things you said on the talk page

I’ve placed this here because this is between me and you. Here are some objections to some of the things you said. I’ll probably give this article up as a lost cause because no administrators or others user want to help me. I just thought I’d clear a few things up before I leave. I want to say that I’m not angry at you and I don’t want to appear hostile; I’m just a little frustrated that I can’t change a small section of such a long article. This has never happened to me before. I hope we can stay friends though.

The origin of the moon

"It is worth noting that the example Hawkes gave of the origin of the moon is still accepted." You cannot be serious!

According to my Dorling Kindersley science encyclopaedia, my Christmas present in 1998, published in 1997, it is still a valid theory!

ISBN number: 0-7513-5641-7 Relevant page number: 288

The three theories (still valid today) are:

The moon came from the Earth – flung off into space or broke off due to a large collision.
The moon may have formed from material around the young Earth.
The moon was captured by the Earths gravity.

Examination of moon rock samples by NASA has shown that the Moon is made from the same material as the Earth (at least the moon rocks they examined did) so this kind of debunks the last theory. So what I said was true. I think Hawkes misrepresented what his teacher told him when he said the Moon “came from the ocean and was flung into space”. When the Earth was totally molten the ocean didn’t exist. The Moon was formed due to molten material being flung off due to centrifugal force; the ocean doesn’t come into it. This is a hypothesis not a fact at the present time though.

Courtesy

Courtesy is important in everyday life if you are to be respected, but it is vital on Wikipedia. Here is an example of extreme rudeness on you part:

George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish!

You don’t want to monopolise?!

It seems clear to me that you are trying to monopolise the article reverting my changes four times in a row. Reverting three edits consecutively is supposedly an offence that result in you being blocked from editing, but you’ll be happy to know the administrators were against me….. again.

Good and evil

If I may speak frankly, you appear to be under a fundamental misunderstanding. This is an article about a TV documentary, not a battleground in the war between the forces of good versus evil.

I am well aware of that and I’m not changing the article in such a way to imply that that is the case (that it's a good versus evil analogy). I only want to edit two sections! In fact the only section I want to change, slightly, is the Colorado Spring section. You revert my small changes every time!

Miller 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: why are you editing so many pages related to Richard Dawkins?[3]Miller 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Root of All Evil?

Laurence,

Can you please remember not to violate (or appear to violate) WP:OWN and try to talk out discussion with Simpsons contributor (talk · contribs) at talk:The Root of All Evil?. I can't really see what you're arguing about. — Dunc|☺ 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dunc. I'm sorry that it appears that way, but in fact I have no desire to own the article, which is why I have invited two users in to help progress the article. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware on Wikipedia anyone can edit the article. I’m sick of being made to feel like I need your permissions first. If you can get away with breaking the 3 revert rule maybe I can. Miller 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clockback

Anyone on wiki can edit an article but the comment "OK, that's enough" wasn't necessary on the personal profile 'Clockback'. As it's a personal profile then surely it's up to that person to object to my opinion and not you to tell me what is or isn't "enough". Who died and made you king?!! Miamomimi 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you consider that what you had written was acceptable, then why didn't you reinstate it verbatim? Why not put some work into your own user page instead? Laurence Boyce 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it - I'm new to this. I've just found some help/instruction refs so I'm reading at the moment. As soon as I'm good enough I want to introduce some pages on photo-journalists as some images are iconic but the photographer is often forgotton or given no credit. But I'm still learning just now. And I'd like one of those Boris banners on my user page. All in good time. Miamomimi 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Laurence I see there's a vandal on the Peter Hitchens article. I've Peters email address if it's of any use. I'm sure he'd help if needed. My email is available from my user. All best. Miamomimi 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Miamomimi. I don't think anyone actually believes that Hitchens is the vandal. Unless he's totally flipped! Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I didn't think Peter was the vandal but could be called upon to confront in a pinch. I don't think he shrinks from confrontation! Neural confirms there is a barring procedure - I thought there must be. Miamomimi 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Bible and the Holy Qur'an

Hello Mr. Boyce. I just thought I'd share a resource I recently came across - the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and the Skeptic's Annotated Qu'ran. In fact it is just the Bible and Qu'ran with the funny bits and loony bits highlighted. It is a treasure-trove of comedy if you like absurd humour. Did you know, for example, that Allah regularly turns humans into apes? You'll laugh. You'll cry and despair as you realize the majority of humans on the earth must be barking mad. -Neural 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank Neural, it looks like an interesting resource. On another matter, I may have to revert the change you made to The God Who Wasn't There. We had a discussion about this on the talk page, and settled on "many". The Christians wanted "most" of course. I feel I really need to defend the decision from both directions for consistency. Thanks again. Laurence Boyce 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry, I missed that discussion and thought "some" seemed better when I noticed it. But, yes, please revert it if that is the consensus. -Neural 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, one of the funniest highlights of the above (for me anyway) was Solomon talking to a group of ants. I think an ancient ancestor of Walt Disney helped with some of the writing. -Neural 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A naughty person

Having looked into your chum's actions it seems to be an AOL proxy address which makes things trickier, so I've listed the problems at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and expect someone knowledgeable to take early action. Any recurrence, you can check the advice on that page and report it there yourself. Hope that won't be necessary, ...dave souza, talk 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and with Hitchens too. Laurence Boyce 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian Flemming

1) He does hate the Catholic Church 2) He does encourage people to leave his crap in Churchs

Devilmaycares 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. devilmaycares 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Devilmaycares

His/her last edit to Brian Flemming was two days ago. It is entirely inappropriate to be reporting it to WP:AIV. If you have a dispute with this user, consider taking it to WP:RfC or WP:RfAr. --Nlu (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The last edit was last night. You don't think that supplying ironic bylines is vandalism? Fine, I'm taking the article off my watchlist. If you want Wikipedia to go to the dogs . . . Laurence Boyce 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Eminent" "tossers" (your words) ref Dawkins

Did you mean to imply by your comment on knighthoods that it is impossible to be eminent and a tosser? Out of curiosity have you met Dawkins? :) --BozMo talk 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, one may certainly be eminent and a tosser. Indeed it may well be that the two are highly correlated for all I know. What I meant was that the coinage of a knighthood is so devalued as to be of little relevance to Dawkins's eminence or lack of it. Indeed it is hard to imagine that he would even accept one. I have never met Dawkins by the way. Laurence Boyce 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense and I agree the correlation may exist (although tosser isn't a word I would use... when I have seen Dawkins speak he has an irritating habit of stating the obvious/unprofound in a rather patronising/pompous/mocking way, but I probably suffer the same problem so I can't really complain... I don't know if this habit qualifies both of us as tossers... ). Knighthoods have been devalued but so also have Oxford chairs which now come automatically with time like the US ones and aren't a further mark or distinction after tenure which they used to be. On Dawkins though I am a mathmo not a biologist so if you say he has done something important I am not in a position to argue...but I still think if we use the word for him there are many others in WP (including SJ Gould whom I am a fan of) who perhaps should get it too.--BozMo talk 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't use the word "tosser." I must say it's a word I'm rather fond of, and I use it a great deal. Of course I've seen plenty of Dawkins on videos and the like. I can't say he irritates me in any particular way, but if he did it wouldn't matter. The point about the Charles Simonyi Chair is more that it enabled him financially to concentrate on his writing and pursue the general aims of the Chair which is to explain science to the public. I would argue that Dawkins has done more than anyone to explain evolution to the masses, though possibly Gould is more popular in the States. And Gould is certainly eminent, though I suppose there can be no hard and fast rule. For me personally, Dawkins's eminence derives solely from his writing. He really did change the way we think in my view. Laurence Boyce 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to tosser particularly I just don't use it so I don't know quite what it means. I guess I prefer the word "jerk" which has the same root so I guess its the same. On D, I doubt the chair was what gave him freedom given his success as an author: I thought it was more of a late-career ego-boost for someone who had failed quite to get one for his mainstream work and got it for his hobby. For what its worth Dawkins did not change the way I think, at least not about religion or science. The religious bit (that religious belief systems can be sensibly viewed as if they were evolutionary creatures/viruses) has been knocking around as a concept for ages and for my money is better analysed by Bowker in Licensed Insanities which predicted the problems with fundamentalism rather well (Bowker is at least an expert on religion, and is editor of the Oxford Dictionary of R I think, whereas Dawkins has never had the patience, which is broadly dangerous however brilliant you are). The only insights I have into evolution come from Gould (and Pinker on language I suppose), and as a Brit I have barely met a "creationist" so probably dismiss this as rubbish even quicker than he does. FWIW Dawkins has failed to convince me to stop being an agnostic Christian (e.g. see [4] which I wrote before I had heard of Dawkins and still broadly agree with) so obviously I have missed the point of him somewhere, but I know he has some real fans. --BozMo talk 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the thing about the Chair giving him the freedom to write from the book I referred to. Dawkins changed the way I think. He taught me to turn everything on its head, and specifically to pay very close attention to that which is not there, not merely to that which is there.

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

But it sounds like you knew this already. I'm afraid I tend to think that Dawkins is greater than any Chair, knighthood, or honour. Even the Nobel prize went down the plughole after it was offered to Mother Teresa. The trouble with Bowker, is that I've never heard of him. But Sam Harris knows a thing or two about religion.

Laurence Boyce 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a good thing to have heros, and even better being prepared to name them. My list of those who progressed my understanding through either progress or communication is different to yours and I cannot possibly know if that's because I heard the cover version first and always thought the original was cribbed (i.e. perhaps indirectly I learnt things from Dawkins but just creditted others with the insights). I therefore revise my opinion of him away from tending to think of him an arrogant self-publicist with nothing new to say (I have quite a long list of these) to a possible significant contributer. My only remaining comment beyond this is to say the people we really like often has as much to do with us (at the time we read their books) as with them. If Dawkins has helped many people as much as he has you then perhaps he deserves "eminent" in reality as well as in Wikipedia's strange democracy. --BozMo talk 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I had seen the comment about giving him the freedom etc but I had assumed it was a typical hat doff to a major donor rather than actually true... perhaps I am too cynical--BozMo talk 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Dawkins has said himself that his ideas are not original (apart from the Extended Phenotype). However, there is no doubt that the way he said it has made a huge difference; and the way he says it includes the book tours, TV appearances, articles, lecture tours, etc. It's not enough merely to write the book, and self-publicity is actually pretty hard work. Plus once you start criticising Islam, you need a bodyguard too! But I agree that, in a sense, I am merely talking about myself here, not Dawkins. Can't be helped really. Laurence Boyce 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I had missed him say that, and respect him for saying it. I am left uncertain in my own mind whether promoting what we believe about these things is really the right thing to do or (a la Babelfish) it is better if we sit relaxed, listen plenty and avoid pitched argument. The angry young man still lurking in me thinks the first whereas reading "the war of the end of the world" by Llosa and contemplating all the death in the name of creeds (including Stalinism, Tribalism etc.) makes me want to pronounce ideas never worth dying or killing for. Anyway, I've enjoyed the chat, thanks.--BozMo talk 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I'm wondering if it is approperiate to merge moral naturalism and ethical naturalism. It appears to have been five days of silence since I last proposed the merge and the articles appear to discuss the same thing. Canadianism 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I don't think I've been involved with either article though. Laurence Boyce 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Defending Dawkins

If you don't agree with comparing Dawkins to Russell and Haekel, to introducing Dennis Noble and Bob May, then please explain why and have a reasoned debate. Or improve the contributions. Simply reverting looks like shielding your hero from reasonable criticism. I have emailed you asking what your problem is, and get no response except reverts. Let's have a proper discussion. NBeale 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks NBeale. I neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote. I merely note that it was unencyclopedic in tone. I think I said that in one of my edit comments. We are under no obligation to amend unencyclopedic stuff. Laurence Boyce 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you and Sparkhead like to have a go at the notable academic supporters and I'll (re-)draft the critics? NBeale 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I'm filing a RFC against the behavior of Devilmaycares. I'd appreciate it if you co-signed, or helped to gather evidence. Link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Devilmaycares ---J.S (t|c) 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure I'd be willing to help. I've never done this before, so please tell me which sections to edit and what I should say roughly. My only experience with him has been on the Brian Flemming article, so I could detail that episode if that is any help. Laurence Boyce 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all endorse that you have tried to "resolve the dispute" with him. If you wish to add a paragraph about your specific interaction with him feel free to add a new section below the "Response" section. Thanks! ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if you have any more evidence to add, feel free to do so using the same style I did. ("#[diflink] brief explanation") ---J.S (t|c) 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Root of All Evil.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Root of All Evil.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gay. This image is not required; please remove it. Laurence Boyce 10:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW

This

Devilmaycares AKA “Grazon”

is a fellow against whom you and I struggled about Brian Flemming. (You and I have also struggled against each other there, but respectfully and in good faith.) —12.72.70.78 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good news. Laurence Boyce 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Love the photo on Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit! Made me laugh on a wet Wednesday morning. Keep up the good work! Snalwibma 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was late and I'd just switched off the computer when I thought of that so, being incorrigibly childish, I had to get the old thing started up again! Laurence Boyce 20:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A certain editor readded it after it was removed from the article. Beautiful. Truly well done. *Spark* 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sparky. And thanks for being so resolute on the Dawkins articles. Laurence Boyce 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dawkins...

Boy do I miss Talk:Richard Dawkins being a quiet, reasonable place to discuss changes to the article!! Mikker ^(...) 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's been non-stop firefighting since The God Delusion came out, and not just on the Dawkins articles. I'm sorry I haven't been much use recently; I can barely keep up with what's going on. The antagonists will never win as they are so heavily outnumbered, but they sure are wasting our time in the process. Thanks for all your efforts. Laurence Boyce 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RichardCarrier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RichardCarrier.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Carrier, Holding, and the Rubicon

I added Carrier's rebuttal too, as he has explicitly taken down Holding on this subject, and at this time has had the last word. Still doesn't mean it all has to stay though. — Coelacan | talk 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks old fish! Laurence Boyce 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the Sam Harris article and associated book articles

Thank you for taking the time to develop and maintain the Sam Harris articles. I know how much effort it can be simply keep vandalism to a minimum, and the pages are top-notch in organization and writing style. Dan Slotman 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I really appreciate your remarks. Laurence Boyce 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Dickin

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Talk:Mike Dickin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www1.talksport.net/presenters/presenter_detail.asp?pres_id=99974, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on [[Talk:Talk:Mike Dickin]]. Then you should do one of the following:

Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at [[Talk:Talk:Mike Dickin]] where we can find that note; or
Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Talk:Mike Dickin]].

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! tgheretford (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth. Laurence Boyce 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

..and a happy new year. miamomimi. 86.144.153.81 01:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mia. Happy new year. Laurence Boyce 13:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.