User talk:Kaptinavenger

March 2014

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on List of federal political scandals in the United States, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A January article about a February event? I don't think so. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Kaptinavenger, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community - subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution/Creationism and WP:3RR

Hi Kaptinavenger,

you probably have hit a hornet's nest at List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. This is a very contentious topic on Wikipedia (and online in general), where people from different backgrounds freely mingle. I very much don't agree with your point of view, but I particularly think we should establish a reasonable discussion. Please take a look at WP:BRD for one suggested way of handling content disputes. And please also look at WP:3RR - you are very much in risk of breaking that "bright line" rule. The previous title has been around for months at a time - the world will not end if it stays a few more hours while we discuss the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

You asked "I am curious, has anyone proposed an origin of life other than creation or evolution? Or are these the only two choices? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)"

I agree with the response of the writer who said this was not a general forum for discussion on this question, but I agree your question is an important one. Firstly, amongst fundamentalist Christians there is a great ignorance about the nature of evolution. Firstly the word evolution comes from the Latin "evolvere" meaning to unrol. Thus evolution means to unroll what was rolled up. It can be said that your life is an evolution, the development of the potential that you had as a child, or even further back, as a fertilised egg at conception. Our culture too is evolving, we do not live the same kind of life that our great grandparents did. To say that evolution does not exist, as creationists do is to misunderstand what evolution is. Evolution in this way is an undisputable fact. Secondly creationists then take this one step further and say OK, "looking at evolution in this way, of course evolution hapens, I am referring to biological evolution". But even here there are problems. Biological evolution as "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" has been in use in English since the 1660s. You are evolving all the time. You are not the same person this evening as you were this morning. Over 70% of your body is water, and you replace every molecule of that water within a month. You eat 2.5 tonnes of food a year, and you only stay at constant weight because you shed the same amount all the time. This change leads to your evolution. So then we need to be specific and speak only of "Darwinian evolution". But Darwin did not like using the word evolution. Used in this way, in Biology, Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859). He preferred the term "descent with modification". And here too creationists can have no argument. You have descended from your parents and grandparents. You are not identical to them. Of course you have been modified.

What creationists have difficulty with is that science has demonstrated a different way that "species" were created than their scriptures say. There are about 3-30 million species on this planet. Most are bacteria, in fact there are more bacerial cells in your body right now than there are cells that are "yours"! Creationists would argue that every one of these species were separately created as it states in the Bible, within 6 days of creation. And they believe that because they believe that every word in the Bible is literal then that is how it happened. But this is to put the Bible into a straight-jacket and do violence to the texts. The Bible is full of poetry, legend, metaphor, argument, history, geography, superstition, theology, apologetics, and much much more. In fact it is not really a book, but is more like a Lbrary of books! To say that it has to be believed literally is not what the writers of the Bible intended.

We need evolution. You need evolution, you need to grow and develop and change in your life. Evolution is in the Bible itself. The bible, and our understanding of it, is evolving all the time. Your world is very different than the world that the Bible writers lived in. Your world is round, the Earth goes around the sun, and the sun circles the milky way which is just one of billions of billions of galaxies in the universe. To the people who wrote the Bible the Earth was the centre of the universe - a very different world.

Hope this helps

Regards

John D. Croft (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, thank you for your time. I am happy to have the discussion in the right place.

My question is meant to be asking are there any other Origin belief systems? Or does anyone believe in something other than creation and evolution. Using the term "Creation" to mean God made it and "Evolution" to mean the common ancestry of all life.

I know what Darwinists teach about Creationists. I am a creationist. And a fundamental Christian. I believe the Bible is true. I also believe in gradual changes over time. I just don't think those changes can make the leap from say fish to frog. I understand that over generations dogs can change their spots (evolve). But I do not believe a reptile laid a bird egg. Nor that life sprung from the goo. Nor that the universe started from a laws of physics deifying, anti entropy having, Imaginary time big bang. Seriously google "Imaginary time" its what Hawking believes in over the Bible SMH.

Also so you know until proven by Columbus, Bible believers were the only people who believed the earth was round. Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.” Many Darwinists and anti-Christians are to eager to lie about what the Bible really says.

Again thanks John. And if you see or know where this discussion is happening, please let me know. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Lamarckism. I don't think Lamarck speculated about the actual origin of life, but nor did Darwin. Darwin expressed his views about "the origin of species", but not about the origin of life. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definitions (as always). You might want to take a look at List of creation myths. There is a huge variety of different narratives, not all of which involve conscious creation by a higher being (and even fewer have an omnipotent deity create the world ex-nihilo). Also relevant is the Demiurge concept in Platonism, where a chain of beings is created by emanation from the "One", one of which then fashions the actual world (which is not a good thing). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I will post this next question on the Talk:List of creation myths also. Does Hawking's popular belief that gravity caused (created) the universe qualify as a creation myth? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kaptinavenger (it feels strange to speak to you by such a title - do you have a real name you would be happy to share)

Thank you for your interesting letter.

You confessed to being a fundamentalist who believes the Bible to be inerrant. I want you to know although I am what I would call a post-Christian, having been baptised and confessed as a child, my deep studies into Christianity, history and science have led me to the certainty that the primary revelation is the universe itself - the creation of the cosmos of which we are all a part. I have read the Bible cover to cover at least 4 times (It may be 5 times I ave lost count) and I have read many sections of it many more times than this. It is the Universe that is the only creation I believe that cannot be decieved as it is the repository of ultimate truth. Our beliefs about the universe, however, and all human endeavours are frought with errors, we are a finite species individually and collectively, and history shows that our beliefs have changed throughout history. For example, if the Bible is inerrant in its totality then what are we to make of the commandments in Exodus? For example Exodus 21:17 states "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death". Exodus 22:18 states "You shall not permit a witch to live". As a result of these two verses, throughout history children and innocent women have been killed. In fact they are still are being killed for this in Africa. Children whose parents are dying from AIDs in Africa, are accused of having been witches who have cursed their parents, and have been put to death within fundamentalist circles. This to me is an abomination. We can only understand the text of the Bible in its context, and the context in which Exodus was written was during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in southern Iraq, before they returned to Israel Palestine to build the second temple. It was a highly misogynistic patriarchal culture in which your children and wives were seen as your possession, and all kinds of horrors were allowed. Thank goodness our secular modern world is more civilised.

Christianity has distorted the teachings of Jesus by taking them out of their original context. I could give you hundereds of examples, but those two are good enough.

You mentioned that Christians were the only ones to believe in a round Earth. This is not true. In fact it was the ancient Greeks since Pythagorus who have believed in a spherical Earth, and in fact Eratosthenes of Alexandria had calculated its circumference to a surprising degree of accuracy. For a long time the Christians believed the world was flat.

This was held for a long time by certain Christians who literally did believe that the world was a flat circular disk, and not a sphere, based upon the verse that you mentioned. The Book of Revellations claimed for instance that all of humankind shall witness the events of the last days simultaneously. It was argued by early Christians that this was only possible if the earth was flat as otherwise the people living in the antipodes could not see what was happening elsewhere in the heavens.

In Book III of The Divine Institutes, for instance, Lactantius ridicules the notion that there could be inhabitants of the antipodes "whose footsteps are higher than their heads." After presenting some arguments he attributes to advocates for a spherical heaven and Earth, he writes:

"But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies that are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another."

Saint Augustine (354–430) took a more cautious approach in arguing against assuming that people inhabited the antipodes:

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled."

Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point; Augustine continues:

"It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man."

Leo Ferrari has recently shown from many of Augustine's passing references to the physical universe that he believed in an essentially flat Earth "at the bottom of the universe".

Furthermore Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture was of a flat earth in a Tabernacle, with the proportions according to scripture. In the Mddle Ages, for example many TO Maps were produced in which it was Jerusalem that was the Centre of the Earth. Now if the Earth is a sphere this is impossible, it is only if the world was a falttened disc, as Genesis asserts, that Jerusalem can have been the centre. The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans. In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes[75] St. John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c. 293 – 373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen.

For example Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius. Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote that the Earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall". Bishop Isidore of Seville (560 – 636) taught in his widely read encyclopedia, the Etymologies diverse views such as that the Earth was a flat disc "resembles a wheel". In this he resembled the pre-Socratic Anaximander who referred to a flat disc-shaped Earth.

Kapitanavenger - in fact it was only the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle in the Middle Ages that convinced most learned people that the world was truly spherical. That so many people had asserted that it was truly flat, based upon taking scripture out of its Iron Age context, caused a conflict for a short time

Thank Goodness in the far west these views never gained sway. With the Carolignian Renaissance under Charlemagne, particularly under the influence of writers like Bede the Earth was argued to be round, like a ball, as he put it. By the 11th century, as a result of European science discovering Islamic Astronomy (most of the named stars still have Arabic names), it was taken for granted that the world was spherical and not flat, but there are still, even today, fundamentalists who deny the spherical Earth on the basis of scrpture.

For example English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1885), writing under the pseudonym "Parallax," produced a pamphlet called Zetetic Astronomy in 1849 arguing for a flat Earth and published results of many experiments that tested the curvatures of water over a long drainage ditch, followed by another called The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scripture. In 1877 the fundamentalist John Hampden produced a book called "A New Manual of Biblical Cosmography" showing a flat earth in which the sun goes around the Earth. Rowbotham also produced studies that purported to show that the effects of ships disappearing below the horizon could be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye. In 1883 he founded Zetetic Societies in England and New York, to which he shipped a thousand copies of his Astronomy. Challenges were issued in the New York Daily Graphic offering $10,000 to charity to anyone proving the Earth revolved on an axis.

William Carpenter, a printer originally from Greenwich, England, supported Rowbotham and published Theoretical Astronomy Examined and Exposed – Proving the Earth not a Globe in eight parts from 1864 under the name Common Sense. Basing his theories on scripture he later emigrated to Baltimore where he published A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe in 1885. For example he wrote

"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

and

"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best — because the truest — thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."

John Jasper, the black ex-slave preacher said to have preached to more people than any Southern clergyman of his generation, echoed his friend Carpenter's sentiments in his most famous sermon "Der Sun do move and the Earth Am Square", preached over 250 times always by invitation.

In Brockport, N.Y, in 1887, M.C. Flanders argued the case of a flat Earth for three nights against two scientific gentlemen defending sphericity. Five townsmen chosen as judges voted unanimously for a flat Earth at the end. The case was reported in the Brockport Democrat.

"Professor" Joseph W. Holden of Maine, a former justice of the peace, gave numerous lectures in New England and lectured on flat Earth theory at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. His fame stretched to North Carolina where the Statesville Semi-weekly Landmark recorded at his death in 1900: 'We hold to the doctrine that the earth is flat ourselves and we regret exceedingly to learn that one of our members is dead'.

After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount created a flat Earth Society in 1893 in England and created a journal called Earth not a Globe Review, which sold for twopence, as well as one called Earth, which only lasted from 1901 to 1904. She held that the Bible was the unquestionable authority on the natural world and argued that one could not be a Christian and believe the Earth is a globe. Well-known members included E. W. Bullinger of the Trinitarian Bible Society, Edward Haughton, senior moderator in natural science in Trinity College, Dublin and an archbishop. She repeated Rowbotham's experiments, generating some interesting counter-experiments, but interest declined after the First World War. The movement gave rise to several books that argued for a flat, stationary earth, including Terra Firma by David Wardlaw Scott.

At the beginning of the 20th century during his solo circumnavigation of the world, Joshua Slocum encountered a group of flat-Earthers in Durban, South Africa. Three Boers, one of them a clergyman, presented Slocum with a pamphlet based upon scripture in which they set out to prove that the world was flat. Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal Republic, in South Africa said: "You don't mean round the world, it is impossible!"

In the 20th century Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who in 1906 took over a Pentecostal sect that established a utopian Chrstian fundamentalist community at Zion, Illinois, preached flat Earth doctrine from 1915 onwards and used a photograph of a twelve mile stretch of the shoreline at Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin taken three feet above the waterline to prove his point. When the airship Italia disappeared on an expedition to the North Pole in he warned the world's press that it had sailed over the edge of the world. He offered a $5,000 award for proving the Earth is not flat, under his own conditions. Teaching a globular Earth was banned in the Zion schools and the message was transmitted on his WCBD radio station.

Kapitanavenger, such it is easy to laugh at such fundamentalist views, but they all do something that many fundamentalists do. They take the scritpures out of their context. The bulk of the scritpures of the Old Testament, as I have shown, were written in Babylonia, and in Babylon at the time most people, even well educated people, believed the world was a flat disc under a starry firmament, where te sun went around the Earth. This was the best scientific understanding there at that time. If you take a text out of its context you have a pretext, and unfortunately that is what creationists are doing. Evolution is as true as a spherical Earth, so big for us is really a tiny dot in a universe that is enormous. The universe did not begin about 6000 years ago but began with the origins of space and time 13.73 + or - 120 million years ago. The sun does not go around the Earth but around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy of more than 200 billion suns. The more than 30 million species of life on earth were not created in 6 days, but over more than 3.6 billion years.

If you do not believe that the creation is the primary revelation you are worshipping a false god. You have replaced god with a book that was written at a place and at a time, and by taking it out of that context you can justify almost anything. Including killing children and witches. It includes the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of doctors. It includes religious wars and acts of terrorism and mass suicide (like at Jonestown).

As I said before, I respect your fundamentalism, even if I know it to be wrong. I don´t believe you will change your beliefs unless you were to engage in the kind of religious, historical and scientific studies I have been involved in over the last forty eight years. As my mother used to say, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I don´t expect you will change, but perhaps you may understand my views a little better.

I hope this helps you understand my position

Warmest regards

John D. Croft (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, hello, you may call me Jon, kaptinavenger is a handle I chose twenty years ago (at age ten) when captainavenger was already taken :). Thank you for you'n your letter, I love history, and reason. I had not known how recently flat earth was being preached. Hilarious and tragic. I accept the history of man's awful interpretation of the word. I agree men do abominable things in the name of God, and I think those who are burning witches for Christ should see what He said concerning the stoning of a certain prostitute. I also shudder to think of, what would be, had God been more lenient way back when. I believe in the infallibility of God's Word, though not subscribing to any single translation and I often believe in multiple interpretations. Sometimes you can say a thing two or three ways and be right every time. Other times you can say a thing two or three ways and be right none at all. And still yet you can say a thing two or three ways and be right in one way or two ways and wrong in the other(s). I rarely find studying God's Word simple. Though it is always easier to follow than Hawkins. And I believe in a fallen state. I believe the ability to interpret and understand anything has been compromised at least to some extent.

I do believe the authors of the Bible were often writing things they could not have known themselves. One small example is the prophecy in Revelation when, then, it did appear the Bible was talking about flat earth "all of humankind shall witness the events of the last days simultaneously" but was in fact referring to the telecommunication revolution of the late twentieth century. People thought they would be looking UP simultaneously, today we know they will be looking down (at their phones!) simultaneously. Something the author should not have known about.

And some of the discoveries in science of the last century are evidence of the Bible's truth. Like the distance of Eta Carinae at 7500 ly. A little coincidental, the amount of light that has gotten to the earth. Or Relativity, without mass - no energy, this is a problem for ex nihilo, though rather evidence of Creation. Also dinosaur soft tissue? Talk to me about millions of years old soft tissue.

I have grave concern for the move in public schools towards Secularism. Like the Romans, America is choosing to defend her city's with the gods of her defeated enemies. The God of Truman, and Reagan (though I am sure they differed greatly in their religion I little doubt they shared a God) is being replaced by the gods of The Axis and Marx. Humanism and godlessness are replacing Biblical principles. I don't want to blame science, I love science. But when I ask disbelievers "Why?" it is never because of something said in the Bible that has offended, but is almost always something like "because I believe in science".

When the Bible is taken out of the science classroom a vacuum is made. I can understand not wanting to depend on the Bible for all the answers, but what are the students being made to study instead? Is the Big Bang, or upward evolution less religious or more scientific than the Bible? And are the consequence's of them better?

Thank you Mr. Croft for your wonderful letter. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

See my comments at the AfD page. Manul ~ talk 08:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not stopped; second warning. See my comments at AfD page again. Manul ~ talk 09:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:CAN have I violated? See my comments at AfD page again. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only canvasing I have done has been down the list with no review of editors contributions the only people I skipped are those I suspect of using bots and having no interest in the article at all, and those whose talk pages say to leave alone or something to that effect. Why are you so ready to accuse? WP:GD WP:NPOV WP:BITE --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this at AfD. Choosing a set of editors to notify is called canvassing. You are choosing the set of editors who edited the article. That set of editors is not a neutral set of editors. You are choosing a non-neutral set of editors. That is canvassing. Final warning. Manul ~ talk 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I say the only people I skipped are those I suspect of using bots and having no interest in the article at all, and those whose talk pages say to leave alone or something to that effect. Why are you so ready to accuse? WP:GD WP:NPOV WP:BITE

There are two completely separate issues. The first is that you are saying Dougweller is using a bot, which you haven't explained. Independent of that, there is a second issue: as I said at the AfD page, even if you notified every single person appearing in the article history, without leaving any one out, that would still be a problem. Do you understand why? It's explained above as well. Manul ~ talk 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, the only administrator to tag the page, got a personal note on his talk page. And where is it written "if you notified every single person appearing in the article history, without leaving any one out, that would still be a problem." I think you have a problem with WP:NPOV and WP:BITE and WP:GF. Your coming across like a bully, throwing your Wikipedia experience around.

Do you understand that the set of editors that are invested in an article is not a neutral set of editors for that article? When there is a court case involving a certain company, it's not proper to stack the jury with employees of that company. We seek disinterested jurors, not interested ones.

It is OK to notify the originator of an article as well as prolific editors of an article, but going through all editors as you have been doing is not appropriate. Manul ~ talk 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where this is written? And before the AfD did you ever read WP:EQ WP:AFD WP:GAME WP:NPOV WP:EP Your being Lazy and rude. Try Reading more and complaining less. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We seek disinterested jurors" means you hope editors of this article wont take interest, because an article you didn't help make, and don't care to edit, implies something that offends your sensitivities? WP:EQ WP:AFD WP:GAME WP:NPOV WP:EP according to WP:CAN "going through all editors as [I] have done" is the only appropriate way to canvas. ABCD... --Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court room, its an encylipedia and if an article of a real encyclipdia was being considered for removal, while the author, coauthor, editor, and coeditor were still on staff, wouldn't they get a chance to chime in? My canvasing note was simple and balanced. Just a memo of the vote. Do you see yourself as Defending Science, a modern Clarence Darrow? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cows are even-towed ungulates...

...but toeing a cow sound uncomfortable for either the cow or the handler, or possibly both.You might want to take a look at Kowtow. And at Science, but that's a harder topic ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't miss the full Cow-Toe coverage at Talk:List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy#Complete Nonsense --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate behaviour during an AfD discussion

Please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and in particular the section marked 'Wikietiquette': "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool." If you persist in hectoring other participants in the discussion, I shall consider reporting the matter, and requesting that you be topic banned from the discussion. The only issue the discussion should concern itself with is whether the article complies with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Earned --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Conversation moved to talk:List of creation myths#Gravitational Causation --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to delete my comments. You are not free to move my signed comments elsewhere as if there were posted there. Article talk pages are for discussing article changes, not your misuse of article talk pages. You can delete my comments, but you can't misrepresent my signed comments. That's dishonest and deceptive. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your mastery understanding of dishonesty and deception. A barnstar is in order. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of creation myths Attacks and Subsequent Ban

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:List of creation myths. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do these policies extend beyond the article(s) and their talk pages to user pages as well? Or are user talk pages free mans land? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

A summary of site policies and guidelines that concern your editing

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.
Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.

NeilN is generally following these policies and guidelines, and your requests generally fall short of them. Your accusations as to who is or is not Christian doesn't matter, these policies and guidelines are beneficial to Christianity if one believes Christianity is true. They are not beneficial to young earth creationism, because it's not scientific. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kaptinavenger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With all do respect, I accept that on an Important, Religious Article's talk page, I have called a Man, a Bigot, and a Liar. I do understand the block. I would like to keep using this site. I believe I can show more discipline, and patience while editing, Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)directly where relevant. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC) My email address is kaptinavenger@gmail.com --Kaptinavenger (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Also I will, from now on, keep my pings to a minimum, and only to those who would like them. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I suggest that a standard offer approach could be taken in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new appeal in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To NielN.

Mr. N, please accept my apology, for my rude language, bad attitude, and short temper. For what its worth, Respect is due for your contributions to Wikipedia, and your intelligence, as clearly made evident by your work. I do not believe there is any excuse for my rude behavior, particularly on article's and their parts, nor any personal references I have made towards you at all. I also understand that "My" personal point of view, what ever it is on what ever topic, should not be reflected in the article because I think so.

Clearly, my post, that I think has started this dispute(About evolution and big bang and imago de, still fairly posted), was spread to far, and/or not worded right. I do understand it is my job to post the right questions in the right places.

You are the first editor to take any time with me. I see that, and I see that we do not agree on many interpretations of things. I like this.

Forgive my lack of experience, I feel new. My first edit(HC way back when) rash, and I had thought that commonly accepted applied to recent events. I am learning and apologize if it has been seen as wasting your time.

I have added a few accepted edits. I am particularly proud of my change to Sin, the sub section header, Etymology, as opposed to the prier History of the word.

And to Mythology. I Do like this Topic(I am a Christian).

Happy Presidents Day. Jon, H Sellers @NeilN: --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Book, or a Logos?

To Whom it may concern:

I have written a Book.

It has been written in part by: A Man Who is Kneeling, ApokroFink Jessica Mann I think... and some other fine examples of the Demonym of Wikipedia.

Currently, Unedited, it is 55 pages long.

I have Chosen to Omit my conversations with @Coffee:

He does seem to be... a Great Keeper of Secrets.

I really Just want to say. Thank you for all your wonderful Contributions, and Gifts. They shall be cherished by my Children. (Redacted)

Please do not use this page to ask for money. The only thing you should be doing is waiting for your block review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cow-Toe Barnstar

Template:Cow-Toe Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]