User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 1

Let me know if you have problems with this or further questions. (my ~~~~ signature:) RJFJR 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Three cushion billiards now redirects to the same article Three cushion billiard does, i.e. Carambole billiards. RJFJR 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Camp Couture summary

I removed your summary from the Camp Couture article as it wasn't conform with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. "an obvious attempt to provide opium to the industrial masses to delay the inevitable class struggle against the wage labor run industrial machine." This is clearly not neutral (and also unsourced. If it is in fact meant seriously, it's also on the verge to original research). --Fritz S. (Talk) 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. Of course it was meant to amuse! Read it again. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Wikipedia is not a place for that, either. The new summary you wrote is way better. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a place for that. Us useful contributors get our messages across in many ways; it was an obvious invitation to change five words to make a useful summary--If you hadn't of erased in almost no time at all, someone else would have, or would have changed the already in place structure to leave a summary not unlike the one I wrote--after copyediting thirty pages, and reversing real vandalism, A bit of Ignore All Rules obvious humor in nonoffensive form hurt no one, certainly not Wikipedia. Learn to relax a little.

The nickname

Great nickname! Reminds me of our attempts at doing Donnie Brasco impressions in the pub once :) Mushin^talk 18:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear lord! The British should never try Brooklynese; the fabric of the universe can only take so much abuse. You should hear me say "that's-a-spicy meat-a-ball!" (do not attempt). Fuhghettaboutit 22:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Too late...looks like goodbye universe, based on the quality of my voices! Mushin^talk 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in NYC

Hello Fuhghettaboutit - I noticed your work on the New York City Subway article. You might be interested in the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Styx

Just so you're aware, I reverted your change. "Follow up" is a verb ("The doctor said I need to follow up in three weeks."), while "follow-up" (or "followup") is an adjective ("The doctor set my followup visit in three weeks."). (Dictionary.com suggests the hyphenate is the preferred form, but it's rarely used any more.) "Followup" is also used as a noun when the subject is obvious ("The doctor set my followup in three weeks."). Hope this helps. RadioKirk talk to me 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Kirk. However, "Followup" should not be used.-- see for example: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/followup.html ("A doctor can follow up with a patient during a follow-up visit (note that the adjectival form requires a hyphen). Neither phrase should be turned into a single hyphenless word.").
See also http://www.nyu.edu/classes/copyXediting/one_word_two_words.html and

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/quickreference/dashcompound.cfm and
http://www.exeter.edu/communications/style.html

An encyclopedia should follow the formal conventions of the language in which it is written.

I tend to agree with you; I kept "followup" because it's become the convention of late, but I'll go add the hyphen. RadioKirk talk to me 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

supercede/supersede

Cricket being an English game, I rather think the English spelling should apply, not the American English one; I'm reinstating supercede which is the correct spelling.

You might want to check your facts there. Actually, supercede is generally considered a mistake or passe in both American and British English. This is not a British versus American difference; writers on both sides of the pond write "supercede" as an alternate but frowned upon spelling of supersede. The British dictionary, http://www.dictionary.co.uk/, powered by the Cambridge University Press, has no entry for "supercede." Some dictionaries list supercede as an alternate spelling but flag supersede as more correct. Most notably, the OED does list supercede as an alternate, but that it is only quoted in 19th century texts. Changing it back will not cause any great damage. Just don't do it for the reason you cite. Personally, I think an encyclopedia should follow formal writing conventions. Fuhghettaboutit 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Andy Garcia

Hi please be careful when you edit image links as you just made the image disappear from the article. Arniep 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Was monitoring recent changes and got "vandal edit hypnotized."

Please stop editing the name Agression on Nardcore

It is spelled with ONE G, on purpose and it's getting annoying to have to keep changing it. Obviously no one is familiar with the band, who happen to have been close friends so I know what I'm talking about. Thank you. ~~

Slipped by me during mass spelling revert on agresion. I did a google fight before this particular edit: "nardcore aggression" vs. "nardcore agression", and the former got more hits leading me to a false positive. Fuhghettaboutit 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're being cool about it. I still don't understand how and why editors get into a subject they know nothing about, especially punk bands. There is still a lot to be changed. I'll get to it when time doesn't have me by the throat. ~~maluka

Why would anyone not be? All you have to do is go to amazon.com and look up one of their albums to see you're right. Unfortunately, when you're doing something like reverting 230 misspellings of a word, even if you're careful, sometimes one edit is made where it shouldn't be. Fortunately, those who are more involved in the specific article and have it on there watch list, almost always quickly come along and see the mistake for what it is. Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton...

...for correcting the misspelt "Yatching" to "Yachting" in Homi Motivala, P. K. Garg and probably other articles as well. --Gurubrahma 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Yatching strikes me as a particularly unfortunate misspelling; most words in English which contain a vowel followed immediately by tch (or are pronounced similarly) relate to unpleasant practices or bodily functions—retching, felching, belching... Fuhghettaboutit 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind

You were right, that's the correct spelling for both forms, apparently. Skinmeister 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow the above post confused me, because I never saw your prior edits. I see the issue now through the history log. Got ya. I try not to change commonwealth spellings, and in fact, have changed in the past americanized (americanised) spellings to commonwealth spellings in articles that are UK specific subjects. I am not aware of any issue with regard to vigour versus vigor, but you seem to have come to the conclusion it is not a mistake. If it is, please feel free. As for me, I'm going to be even more aware of this issue in the future. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction...

...and the proofreading on the Selectron Tube. OldZeb 06:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI Marco Benz

Marco Benz was recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia.Saigon76nyc 14:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

FYI: Marta Tuyet Dodd was:

1) The first Vietnamese-American to be was selected as a Recruiting Poster for the United States Armed Forces out of a selection process of 17 Sailors throughout the world for the campaign, which was featured in The Navy Times.

2) Is the webmaster of "Navy Girl" which describes her personal experiences and her desire to serve her country.

3) Navy Girl has had nearly 904,250 hits since she started it a year and a half ago a

4) She also established a e-newsletter called called "One Military Parent" for members of all branches of the military

In Contradistinction, Marco Benz

1) Has also ben claimed by you (I think) to have been given poster status by the military, still unsubstantiated, and

2) Happens to be a descendant of someone notable which is irrelevant to his own notability and

3) Nothing else.

I invite you to make your case more convincingly. --Fuhghettaboutit 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Hi. In re. your comment on AfD, see also this search and this search for a comparison of the "unique" hit concept. Note that it changes daily -- Microsoft is now in the 700's and I'm in the 300's, as opposed to Microsoft's two-something-billion and my ~90,000 for actual total hits.

But basically, what it comes down to, is that's where I'm getting my numbers to explain how "unique" hits -- the number of hits before Google says "we've excluded some stuff now" -- aren't a measure of anything. Cheers :)

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that it says "Results 301 - 346 of about 664,000,000", but can you please explain what you "turned on" to have that come up. Something in google's advanced preferences? or some extra (hidden in the results) search function you place in the URL code? I would really like to know. When I repeat that search, I no longer get the initial parameter, i.e. "number - number of about number." So you must be doing something I don't know about, Here's what I get when I repeat: "Results 1 - 100 of about 664,000,000". Also, when I initially did the search yesterday the total was much higher, why does it change!? Thanks. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it's not any specific advanced pref -- I delete my Google cookies semi-regularly, so it's unlikely they'd know what search options rock my boat. It *might* be that you generally don't advance far into the search results -- bear in mind that to get to 393 is something like 30 pages at 10 hits per page. I do tack on a &num=100 to my searches by hand, to increase the number of hits per page, and eventually it'll stop partway through and say it's eliminated (x) number of results. The total number of results it displays before that point is the "unique hits".

Some people think that means that all the other hits beyond the exclusion range are duplicates, and that's why you see users on AfD alleging that (topic) "only" gets so-and-so many "unique" Google hits. That's just not true. It's Google's attempt to bring you relevant results, yes, but the methodology it uses to determine the cutoff numbers is much more complex and in no way implies that the rest of the hits are duplicates.

I'm not implying anyone is deliberately lying to fix AfD results, just that they might have an unclear understanding of how results get vetted. Heck, I don't fully understand Google. I just try to have a handle on how it works before I hit people over the head with it :)

If you wanna get the same results you see in my link, try adding &num=100&start=900 to your search URL. Hope this helps -- I'm not the clearest person in the world sometimes, and I'm not always completely correct, but I try.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Talk about not looking carefully. I failed to notice that this was advanced into the search—that you had scrolled to the end of the search. I see now. I will definitely use this method in future, thanks. Like I prefaced my comment, I don't disagree with you. Google is a tool, not an end-all-be-all of notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's always good to have more people around AfD who can effectively clarify the whole "unique hits" thing for folks :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pool glossary

You seem to be the most active editor on the pool-related articles, so I was wondering what you would think if I created an article giving the Glossary of billiards terms its own article. Each term could get its own section, which would allow us to link to each term directly from other articles, rather than just sending readers to the top of the glossary in the billiards article and making them find the word themselves. It would also serve to keep the billiards article a reasonable size.

I don't want to piss anybody off by doing it, but I think it's a good idea if it's followed through on the rest of the pool articles. What do you think? Kafziel 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Then, in the billiards article, we can link to the that article using a {{main|Glossary of Pool and Billiards related terms}} tag (I think that's what that forked article should probably be named). However, the glossary is already fairly extensive. Certainly some sections can be expanded (especially if clarity is an issue), but I'm not sure we should actively seek to make each section larger just for breadth's sake, and I think it would be unwieldy for each of the numerous definitions to have its own section heading (what a ridiculous table of contents that would result in!). Please feel free. Note that I made quite a few links in other articles to the subsection in this article, which will have to be redacted once the change is made (I think that's what you meant at the end of your message, but I wasn't sure). --Fuhghettaboutit 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that a number of redirects should be made, so that people can stumble on that article without first coming to the billiards (or other) articles. Likely most will find it that way in any case, but, here's some candidates that come to mind for redirects pool lingo, billiard glossary, pool terminology... ack—I'll have to give these some thought. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. And I don't mean that we need to expand each entry further (they're very good already), just that we should give each one its own heading so we can make internal links like [[Glossary of pool and billiards terms#English|English]] so that way the link will go straight to the right term. Kafziel 03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the more I think about it the more I like it. The billiards article itself can now have tons of wikification that it couldn't before. The only thing I still wonder about is the massiveness of the table of contents. Is there a way to turn that off in an article? --Fuhghettaboutit 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dogo Canario

http://www.Dogo-Canario.biz (Delegacion Alemán del Dogo Canario)

Dog photos and free distribution

Thanks for trying to fill in dog articles with photos, but in general fair use photos for the dog articles have been rejected. First is Wikipedia's policy, "It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. " Second is the test in fair use "The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original." Because everything in WP is generally promoted as free distribution, the assumption could easily be made that images are, also, so the potential for widespread distribution of a copyrighted image used without permission could easily occur. (And I'm not sure that we could justify it simply under "wikipedia is educational" anyway, in reading the various policies and dfinitions.) But, thirdly, once there's an image in the article, individuals are less encouraged to add images that *are* free distribution. So I'm removing those photos from the articles. Elf | Talk 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to give this some more thought, but for the moment, you should not remove the (dog) postage stamp I uploaded under a different license, and probably also, you should leave in the two images that were taken from other language wikipedias (well, there goes hours of work (18 other images already found downloaded, and text written for upload))--Fuhghettaboutit 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that sucks. I am sorry; I hate to see anyone (myself included) feel like they're wasting or have wasted time.

On your response--Not convinced on the stamp, either; if you read the text of the fairuse template on that item, it says (it might be fair use) "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)", which isn't the case here; although that restriction might apply only outside the U.S., I think we have to be aware of the worldwide use of WP. For others, the text in the copyright template says "...where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" which isn't the case for dog breeds--contributors are adding dog photos all the time. So reading the displayed template text is sometimes useful.  :-)

As for items from other wikipedias--here are some tips:

• Copy exactly the same info & license as provided on the original page. For example, just now I tracked back Image:Alano Españo.jpg, which you marked with "free use", using your link as a starting point, to de:Bild:Dogo_Canario.jpg, which seems to indicate that it was taken by someone named Sandra Schmidt and that it's released under GFDL (you can tell both by the icon and the text, "GNU Freien Dokumentationslizenz"). So it would be the same here.
• Yes, you do have to download it & upload it again if it's in a foreign-language wikip. But, in the future, to make it easier for future people to use the same image on other language WPs, you can upload it once to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/), copy exactly the text from the image on the other language image, and then it can be used in any language just with the usual syntax (e.g., here, "Image:name.jpg") and no one else has to go through the dowload/upload/etc trauma.
• For dog breeds, we have a cheat-sheet working copy here, some research by another WPian that helps us to figure out what breeds are what. This indicates that the Dogo Canario and the Perro de Presa Canario are the same thing and not the Alano. So I don't know what to make of the image... However, it's true that other languages might use entirely different terminology for various breeds. It's crazy-making. Even our own article says that Dogo Canario is and isn't the same as the Presa Canario.

SOOOO anyway--

Also, you might check the articles as to whether there are already good images further down (e.g., there was in the Bernese Mountain Dog article) that could just be moved up. I'll wait on more changes if you can backtrack and find the correct info for various images in other languages and put it on the image pages here. Ask if you need help with that. Elf | Talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing--if you can give the source URL to the page that contains the info about an image, not just the image itself, that's much more helpful in confirming the licensing claims. For example, Image:English White Terrier.jpg gives a source URL that points me to only the image; I can't confirm from that the painter or the date or whether it's claimed there to be an English White Terrier, etc. Thanks. Elf | Talk 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'm relatively new to the necessary due diligence required in wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema, but I have been trying to comply with the restrictures. After, I left the above message, I read through a few pages and I did see that the postage stamp is only normally permissible in an article where the stamp itself is the subject (argh). As to the English White Terrier, I looked for the painting independent of the print site, but couldn't find it. I was able, however, to confirm independently that the painter died in 1883 so if the painting is indeed by him, it appears to fit public domain licensing (life of author plus 100 years). I think for the moment I'll stick with text edits, and for images, only those clearly unproblematic like movie posters and dvd covers.

It has gotten more complex in the 2 years since I've been editing here, mostly because WP can afford to be pickier as time goes by & they no longer have to rely on copyrighted images but can follow their goal of having free-use images. So nowadays I, too, usually stick to photos that I've taken or that are very very clearly provable as being in the public domain. (English White Terrier--still would've been nice to have a link to the page where the painting & painter was identified.) Elf | Talk 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Glossary of pool and billiards terms

Just wanted to let you know it's up and running. I turned off the automatic table of contents, and set up self-links so, for instance, when a definition says "see mechanical bridge" users can click on the word and the page will take them straight to it. It seems to work really well.

I set up a few redirects as well, and sometime this weekend I will settle in on the other articles and start making new internal links to the glossary. Hope you like it! Kafziel 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, I like it! I already made some minor edits. But I still think the name should be Glossary of pool and billards related terms. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what do you think about making all the terms enclosed in triple equal signs (===term===) rather than doubles? I did it in preview mode and I think it works and looks better. Usually in lists, a term and its definition are not greatly out of proportion to each other in size, and since the glossary is quite extensive (taking a bow), and I plan on adding quite a few more, and I'm sure others will as well, this could cut down on the size of the entire article as well as the necessary scroll to navigate it. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; another editor already made that change. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pharaoh

Thank you for the edits, they are appreciated. WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-19 00:13Z

You are most welcome --Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rydberg states

Careful. You are changing "Rydberg states" inappropriately and making it inaccurate. I have an M.S. in physics, a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics. I have worked in atomic and small molecule spectroscopy. I am an expert in this field. Please refer to the Resonance Ionization Spectroscopy page before making other changes.

Jabberw0cky 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved by me from my userpage to here where it belongs--Fuhghettaboutit 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the addition of an introduction and not paragraph breaks, wikification, etc. The article needed an introduction; If the rearrangement of your language to create that introduction created an error, feel free to edit that change, but the form of the edit—starting the article with a short introduction— should remain and be adapted. If you peruse some vetted, established articles you can get a good handle on the form typically used for ease of the reader, almost always including a precis at the start to introduce the reader to the subject matter. Some examples of standard article forms might be Rydberg formula, Spectral line, Feshbach resonance and Hydrogen line. You should also add references. Your text may be correct to many decimal places, but articles require independent verification--especially where the subject matter is not familiar to most people and thus not easily identifiable as correct or not and as established knowledge or original research. --Fuhghettaboutit

My userpage

===>Thanks for fixing the typo And I'm sure you'll respond "Fuhghettaboutit." -Justin (koavf), talk 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ay...(). Ha! By the way, I've never gotten a good idea from anyone if there is an etiquette to making edits to other people's userpages (which I have violated numerous times)--but I'm compulsive; never met a typo I didn't find personally offensive.

Misunderstood

When I asked about how to create the table (ish) thing you misunderstood what I said. I know how to create what you told me about already though what I'm referring to is different. When you press edit the template doesn't come up. If you actually check the very end of the articles on The Beatles, Metallica and Phil Collins, you'll know what I'm on about. Thanks for trying to help anywayLuciferMorgan 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand now. I have provided new instructions at your question on the help desk. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Hi, before moving articles to alternative titles, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). Thanks. Gentgeen 22:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; all edits reverted. Message left at help desk as well. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hi there Fuhghettaboutit! I wanted to let you know that you need to apply for a bot flag to be running such frequent edits. Wikipedia:Bots is the place to check this out; for now you can put your name under 'bots running without a flag'. Until you get this flag, please keep your edits to no more than a few a minute. Check out the full bots page for more information, and any questions can be pointed at Wikipedia_talk:Bots. Thanks! JoeSmack ^Talk 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I suppose few have worked out a system for making quick edits by hand as I have but I am not a bot, nor am I running a bot and my edits are all done manually (and you can notice that occasionally I make mistakes if you look carefully, such as not hitting minor every so often). I also sometimes stop and make other changes that strike me such as boldfacing the article's subject and usually put that in the edit summary. I find the process very relaxing and I can now do it in my sleep.

This is how it is done:

Go to the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings and do a search for a particular common spelling error. Say nothern (northern). Now right click on the first article containing the error, hit edit this page and minimize. Move on to the next. Do this for say 25 articles (don't open too many, over 30 and your computer [or at least mine] will run sluggishly). Each article is now minimized on your screen's taskbar. The number of windows that can be seen as minimized in the taskbar are always the same, on my computer eight; on another computer I use its fourteen (it depends on the screen size). Now click on all the articles that are minimized by running along them on the taskbar left clicking and you have eight open windows (each one will now automatically appear in a series as you minimize the one before it).

Now in the first first article, type into the edit summary what you are doing, I always use the format: incorrect spelling--->correct spelling (for our example, nothen--->northern). Highlight that and click copy (control + c) so it is in your notepad (another words, every time you paste, that same edit summary text will appear (paste using control + v, which is blindingly faster than right clicking and choosing paste if you are used to it).

Now click edit from your internet explorer menu--->click find (on This Page) and type in the incorrect word (nothern), in the search box that appears (after the first search the word is automatically in the find (on This Page) for all future iterations. All this set up takes about 20 seconds (not inclusive of opening up the 25 windows). As soon as the word is found (immediately) click in it at the right spot, (between the "o" and "t" in nothern hit "r" to correct make the spelling correction, put your cursor in the edit summary, hit control + v (to paste nothen--->northern) hit This is a minor edit box and Save page, immediately minimize, the next window is open automatically on your page (the reason minimizing again is key is because there is lag time while the save is occurring; if you wait for each page to save and then move on to next the process is almost half as slow), repeat and rinse till all eight pages are corrected and minimized.

As soon as you see your desktop, you know that you've gotten to the end of the series. Now just click on the eight pages that are minimized and have finished saving, by running along them on the taskbar left clicking (they will now all be open again on your screen); put your cursor over the close window "x" button and click eight times to close all eight now corrected and saved pages. As soon as you have done this, there are eight more unedited pages in your task bar. Open up the next eight and repeat.

Once you're used to it, it's easy. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Might I suggest you press CTRL+F to invoke Find, instead of using the menu, it would speed things up even more!

Noted!

Anyway, I thought I ought to add something to this discussion. As you will see if you visit my user page, I am engaged in the same sort of work as you are. Although I have not done quite as much. As for the 'bot' question, I shall quote myself from another user's talk page:

I am using tools which automate the processes of searching for and retrieving articles, locating errors and recording corrections. However, I make all actual edits myself – there are no automated 'bot' edits being made from this account.

These tools are custom-written things, not AutoWikiBrowser, and among other things they generate the list at User:Gurch/Spelling. Although my edits are therefore more 'assisted' than yours, they are still very definitely manual.

User:JoeSmack has also brought the concept of 'bots' to my attention. I have had a look at Wikipedia:Bots and unfortunately it seems that they do define 'bot' editing as any sort of high-speed mass-editing, not just automated editing without human supervision. Hence, under the policy (which is admittedly very difficult to follow) it would seems that we should both be contributing using 'bot flags', or contributing much more slowly - more like 1 edit per minute (which I certainly couldn't bear). However the policy does not make a number of other things clear, such as whether we should be making these mass-edits from special 'bot' accounts, rather than our 'normal' user accounts.

I took a look at that page (in fact read it very carefully) and I don't read it the same waty you do. Everything points to that the page is specific to actual bots—automated or semi automated processes with their own coded software that interact with Wikipedia. The fact that they detect bots by looking for edits with short lag time just means that we (or at least me since I am 100% manual, nyaa) have run afoul of a false-positive with the detection process.

So, having been persuaded by User:JoeSmack, I have added a request to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals just to see what happens. According to their own policy, after seven days if nobody has opposed your request then it's OK, so I'm hoping they'll remain silent on the matter, then I can just carry on as I have been.

I will not follow suit. Talk about square peg in round hole. You're a human goddamit!:-) Seriously though, I think the whole thing makes no sense. The reason they need to keep an eye on bots and have them register separately is because they're bots. Will you run all night automatically making the same mistake over and over. Will you not recognize a song title as a song title? (I do that all the time; pause and google to make sure stuff like that is not reflected in the actual name). Will you run haywire and use up half of Wikipedia's bandwith? Of course not. You're making spelling corrections; you're not a bot, and shouldn't need to pretend you are because some blind parameter software process flagged you as doing something which made you (falsely) look like one.

I suggest you might as well do the same, as far as I can see the worst that can happen is you'll have to create another account to make these edits. Which shouldn't be a problem, unless you have editcountitis of course. You could call it User:Lookisaidfuhghettaboutit.

lol

Also, I might as well take this opportunity to commend you for the work you've done so far. It is nice to know that someone else cares about typographical errors. A quick peek at Interiot does Kate suggests you're well past 8000 corrections now; that's 8000 fewer errors for me to worry about. So have one of these flower things, I think it's called a 'WikiThanks'.

My first award! Greatly appreciated!

You can edit in your sleep? I'm impressed -- Gurch 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Now that I think about I may have given someone fodder for thinking I am a bot, what if that were taken literally? --Fuhghettaboutit 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I see you've found each other. To be honest, I think the policy is kinda dumb when it comes down to simply doing good for wikipedia. Really I was just trying to save you some sass from a bureaucrat later on. If you guys aren't worried about it don't be. Keep up the good work regardless of if you get a bot flag or not - cause you guys really pump it out! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 15:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling count

Hi again. You may be interested to know that I've just run a mass Google search for all the misspellings listed on Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings, and the rather depressing news is that there are approximately 60,833 misspellings still to be corrected. Some of these are intentional of course, but then not all misspellings are on the lists, so it could be more or it could be less. Either way, it's a lot -- Gurch 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are probably more spelling errors not on the list than on it. Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. I hate them. Kill-destroy-exterminate. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Kill-destroy-exterminate"? Now you sound even more like a bot :). Anyway, my request on BRFA has so far been ignored, assuming things stay that way I think you've made the right decision by not even bothering with it. For now, I will also continue making corrections as before. Incidentally, your method of eliminating the 'lag' caused by waiting for pages to save is a good one, I hadn't thought about that -- Gurch 08:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I was hoping you would read that and guess I was going for a Dalek sound --Fuhghettaboutit 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gah, Google is being a bit strange. I re-ran the search today to try and gauge how much the figure changed in one day (obviously Google's cache is out of date, but at least it's always out of date by roughly the same amount). Apparently there are now only 38,739 of them. I don't know why this could be, but I think the lesson we can learn from this is: mass Google searches are about as accurate as a lawn sprinkler. And anyway, that's still a very large number -- Gurch 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gurch, it's so much worse than that. Think of any word let me see...(looking at another document on my screen) how about "abandon." Now I looked at the list of common misspellings...yep it's listed with the misspelling, "abondon". Now think of some other likely ways it might be misspelled. Ah, abandan gets me 5 results. I tried a few others without result so this is not a sterling example, but I have come upon others in the past that are not listed, with hundreds of results. I'm betting the number is closer to 500,000. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are right. The current lists of misspellings are not extensive enough. Unfortunately, if they were extended to cover every concievable typo, they would become impossible to use. Comparing my personal correction log with Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/A, it's clear that I've corrected several hundred errors in 'A'-words that are not listed there. The best course of action would be to remove some of the less common errors from those pages and replace them with more common ones, although that would be very tedious, and I doubt I could be bothered to do it.

You have just given me another more interesting idea, though. What we need is not a list of all possiblilties, but some way of generating all the plausible misspellings of a particular word. In other words, a sort of mini-application into which you can enter "abandon" and it'll spit out "abondon", "abandan", and so on down to less likely ones such as "abandno" (people tend to notice transposition of the last two letters). Of course it's easy to come up with these yourself, with a little thought, as you have demonstrated, but if I actually tried to put that into practise, I would probably end up trying combinations more or less at random. This approach would let me do it systematically, without wasting time searching for stuff I've already done, or overlooking ones that I haven't. I can't promise anything, but I'll look into it tonight.

Oh, and I corrected almost 1000 pages today. I think it's a personal record :) -- Gurch 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jackpot! -- "possesed", 84 Google results, not in the lists. Probably not worth the four hours it took to find it, although I have also come up with a method of estimating the number of misspellings there would be if we weren't running around fixing them. Apparently, "seperate" would occur 2622 times, and in fact there are only about 345, so that's nice to know -- Gurch 17:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also "posses", 156 results for that one but some of them are false positives (e.g. Jamaican Posses) -- Gurch 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I give in. You were right. "Possesive" (16), "posessive" (4), "posessions" (30), "possesions" (36), "posessee" (1), "possesees" (1), "posesed" (1), "posesion" (12), "posesive" (1), "possesssion" (2), "possesss" (4), "posssess" (1), "posssesed" (2), "posssesion" (1), "posesssed" (1), "posession" (1), all without entries in the lists. It takes forever just to look at one word, and that's just the obvious ones. There are probably more. Certainly there's no way I'd have found them all without a systematic search.

Anyway, another more useful thing I've done today is import all of the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings lists into a spreadsheet. There are just over 2400 errors on the list, but I'm now adding some new ones (up to 2500 already). At some point, I'll convert the spreadsheet back into articles and update the lists. I've added the Google search results to it as well, so they might as well also go into the lists (unreliable though they are, they do at least give a rough guide) -- Gurch 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Writers bloc

Since you originally put the speedy tag on this article, I thought I would invite you to come participate in its AfD debate: -->HERE. --Hetar 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up --Fuhghettaboutit 13:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Move Management Center

I've added quite a bit of content to The Move Management Center, which you had marked as not following Wiki's policies and guidelines late last week. Could you please review and give me your comments. I feel the entry is fairly unique and notable for wikipedia. Thehusband 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hi again, just thought I'd comment on the spelling error guide on your userpage. It's not really relevant to me as my method is different, but I'm sure there are other people who will find it useful. No spelling errors, anyway (apart from the intentional ones!) I like the new design of your userpage, at least. Nice to see that someone is capable of using userboxes without going over the top and having 50 of them. I should really set up a toolbox like that of my own, it would save me the minutes I spend each day hunting for pages.

Just in case you weren't already aware of this, there is an option in the user preferences that allows you to mark edits as minor by default. I usually turn this on if I'm going to do any mass-correction, as it saves having to tick the box every time.

Anyway, congratulations on reaching 10000 edits – though I'm sure you'll be making many more. (Here's my 10000th edit – representative of the first 9999 I think) – Gurch 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of leaving a message on your page to check out the "guide." Thanks for looking. I know the preferences issue (I say in the guide, "to remove the default checkmark there, if you have it turned on in preferences"), but I know I would forget to watch the articles I want to watch if I take that off default. It's much easier to see the ones on your watchlist that you don't want, than to have no record if you forget! Yeah, I hate all the cluttered userbox crazy pages. Holy shit Gurch, 7,826 edits so far this month? That's got to be a record. That list you have up of corrected errors on your subpage is great. I imagine you did that with the software you are using. If I wanted to do the same it would take me hours and hours and hours. Feel free to drop me a note anytime. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the barnstar! To be honest, you probably deserve one as well, perhaps when you've made 8000 corrections or some arbitrary figure like that. Thanks for the feedback on my subpage, if you have any suggestions, feel free to comment.

You are right – when I first started doing these corrections, I tried to compile a list by hand, and that took forever. Fortunately my programming skills are (just about) up to the task of automating that bit. I have now extended the offline version of the list (not yet the version on my subpage) so that, as well as counting my corrections, it tracks (but doesn't count) corrections made by others. At the moment I have to enter these manually, but if I can figure out a way of parsing Special:Contributions pages, I can probably automate it. I'm adding this feature so that I can see which typos have been checked recently by someone other than me, and avoid duplication of effort, but it sounds as though you would also find this useful.

At any rate, your atheism argument has certainly convinced me, though I think you may need to archive your talk page again soon -- Gurch 13:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good news! Figuring out that parsing stuff didn't take as long as I thought it would. You can find your own personal correction summary at User:Gurch/Spelling/Fuhghettaboutit. It's not completely accurate, it misses off quite a few edits for reasons I haven't yet determined, but it should give you a rough guide. (It thinks you have made 6677 corrections altogether, I guess there are 400 or so missing).

The next step is to adapt the parser for some of the spellchecking bots (such as JoeBot and CmdrObot), then finally, to merge all the summaries into one, allowing you to see when a typo was last checked, and who checked it. I'm not sure how long that will take, though -- Gurch 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! You're right that the software is missing quite a few. I think I'm closer to 7,500 than 6,677 based on my total edits and how many I know were spelling corrections. To give you a for instance, a very recent edit of liason (liaison) was in 33 articles; the software picked up 8. I'm now going to correct it by hand, and remove all the 1 counts--a process that will take me one hour rather than 15 hours now that I have the list in place!And now that it's in place, I can simply manually add to it as corrections are made. Hmmm, instead of editing it in place on your page, I'll make it a subpage of mine, not normal to spend time editing another user's page. After I take it, guess you should remove it (course I'll provide the provenance on the top listing your authorship). Thanks again. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've identified where some of the missing corrections went: "corrections made during copyedits, solo corrections, or corrections of multiple instances of the error in one article." Thanks for that; unfortunately there's no way to generate a 100% accurate list without checking the "diff" of every single edit. Twenty pages of contributions at 500 a time took long enough to deal with, I don't think loading and checking 10,000 pages would be a good use of time!

What interests me most, of course, is the actual errors that you have corrected, I'm not bothered about how many you have actually done. So having the wrong number isn't too much of a problem. The reason for this is that I can use the table to extend the one I built from Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings, adding the errors that you corrected that aren't already on there. Which makes it more likely that someone else will remember to re-check them in the future.

I'll have the version on my user page speedy deleted now that you no longer need it -- Gurch 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. you might not want to have it speedily deleted. You said you want the page to see the corrections I'm making so you can add them, but the way I'm updating the list is destroying your ability to do it. I'm taking out all the endings--so you won't be able to see all the words (example, i'm listing the misspellings of assassin, assassination, assassins, etc. just under "assassin (+). Instead of deleting it, if you want to use it for the purpose you stated, just erase all the provenance and keep the list of words there. Oh and btw, since I modified the db-author template, you can now use if for this deletion (before it was only for pages that were accidentally created). --Fuhghettaboutit 17:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I meant to tell you: I think I picked up on why the program is missing certain corrections by inference from what it missed on my edits. Anytime where I left something in the edit summary other than the straight format: Incorrect--->correct it appeared not to catch it. In certain edits I modified that format. For example, for alot (a lot), the edit summary I used was alot--->a lot (a lot is always two words). Or for followup' (from memory)': followup--->follow up (follow up is always two words, and is hyphenated when used in its adjectival form). I have not finished vetting the list, but it appears that in every instance where I used a nonconforming edit summary, the program failed to find the changes. --Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion is not a problem. The spreadsheet in which I store all this information is linked to my correction software, and is stored in the same folder on my computer. Anything that I put on Wikipedia is simply a copy of part of this spreadsheet. In fact, I don't currently have a local copy of your corrections, but I can generate one if I need it. (It's a bit like the edit counter; the data produced looks "personal", but anyone with enough time can go through the contributions pages and extract it).

As far as the problem with my program is concerned, yes, you are right about why it's missing edits. I tell my program to look for edit summaries of the form Incorrect--->correct, and any that don't fit don't get picked up. Actually, I did change it so that it worked however many hyphens you used in the arrow, (so Incorrect---->correct) would work as well. Unfortunately I'm too lazy to extend it to deal with every special case, and if I make it any more general, it will catch things that aren't typos. As I say, it doesn't matter, as (a) I'm not concerned with how many edits you've done and (b) you know roughly how many edits you've done. Since everyone uses a different style of edit summary, I have to write a separate parser for each person, which takes long enough. As my edit summaries (and JoeBot's) are generated automatically, they are picked up more accurately.

Of course, using the exact same style of edit summary all the time would make this much easier, but that would be completely the wrong thing to do if you were making other edits to the page – the whole point of an edit summary is to clarify exactly what you're doing. In other words, sorry it's not completely accurate, don't worry about it -- Gurch 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You've saved me a million hours. You can stuff your sorries in a sack mister! (Seinfeld quote). Again, much appreciated. --Fuhghettaboutit 23:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User Page

This might be a helpful distinction in vital terms. On your user page, you generated a tag that labels you as an athiest, but defines you as agnostic. Among other resources, Oxford American Dictionary offers this etymology of atheism: Greek a- (without) + theos (god), and defines it as "the theory or belief that God does not exist." It is the belief that we are 'without God.' An agnostic, according to the same source, believes "nothing is known, or can be known of the existence or nature of God," which is consistent with the tag's description of one who "puts no credence in the hypothesis that there exists such a being to deny." The Wikipedia entries for both terms corroborate these senses. If you are absolutely sure that there is no God, then you are an atheist, but to be absolutely sure of something, one must rely either on proof or on faith (commitment to a belief for which there is no proof). You indicate that you are aware that there is no more proof for the nonexistence of God than for the existence of God, so what the tag seems to assert is that, until you see convincing proof that there exists such a being to deny, you will neither totally deny nor confirm the hypothesis of God's existence. This equivocation is very intelligent, but it is not atheism. You would have to assert that there is in fact no God to be an atheist, which you appear to be too smart to do, since such a statement would of course be strictly faith-based, thereby opening you to the claim that you have a religion ("a faith”).

If you believe that you do not have a religion, it might be more credible to call yourself agnostic. Contrary to media fabrications, Einstein privately confided that he was agnostic. However, it is worth a note that even agnosticism might arguably be faith-based, because it relies upon the belief in material evidence as the ultimate determinant of what does and does not exist—a belief for which there is no proof, and which is consequently a faith! --Projection70 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Ha! I like your spirit in taking that statement and running with it but I am not an agnostic; I am, have been and will remain a strong atheist. Your interpretation of the statement makes sense (it's so easy to bend philosophical statements to many purposes), but I intend it for another meaning, or maybe the word is not meaning but purpose. A common (accusatory) manner with which atheist beliefs are characterized by theists is as "denying the existence of God." This form of statement, at least to my thinking, puts at issue that there is a God to be denied. The intent of the statement is to remove that implicit subtext of the language. You can read the statement, or at least I intend it as meaning: "not only am I an atheist, but I object to the statement that atheists deny God's existence, rather as an atheist I don't believe in God and therefore there is no being, ab initio, to deny."

Turning to other matters, I do not agree at all that "there is no more proof for the nonexistence of God than for God's existence itself." In fact, I think there are reams of proof that god does not exist.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, this is the text I wrote at another forum:

There is no affirmative proof that God does not exist. Yet by the same token there is no affirmative proof that Santa Claus does not exist. The same can be said of ifrits, Mother Goose, invisible pink unicorns, astral projection, and that my gerbil is the secret ruler of the universe. I can propose an infinite series of things that are unprovable because they are incorporeal, invisible, unsmellable--unfalsifiable.

If I am asked whether I believe the statement, "Mickey Mouse is a real person," is true, I, and I think most sane people, would not say the jury is out because it cannot be disproved. I'm not absolutely certain of anything, but I'm damn sure enough to unwaveringly make the statement, "Mickey Mouse is not a real person," because there is no proof he is a real person and lots of evidence that he is not, in fact, a real person.

Note also that if I declare that Mickey Mouse is indeed a real person, it is not the skeptical person's burden to show that I am wrong, it is my burden to prove that I am right. If this wasn't the case, any absurd statement would be substantiated by the fact that it was posited, rather than by what evidence exists for why it should be believed.

Ultimately it all goes haywire when we start debating "proof" because, at least in my experience, people in general use this word very loosely, without the logical rigour that is demanded by scientists and philosophers when they use the word.

Nothing can be absolutely proven, even by affirmative evidence, except possibly the kind of logical proof we talk about in mathematics. In both philosophy and science, we can never absolutely prove anything. What we usually mean by proof are those things which cause us to say: "it is very likely that..."; "all these things tend to show that..." X is the case, or is not the case.

So no, I can't prove God's nonexistence absolutely and deductively. But inductively, I can offer a legion of evidence which tends to show that God's existence is very likely not the case.

Just a few of the numerous threads of evidence: Insoluble contradictions in the manifestos of religion (omnibenevolence verses monstrous accounts of evil in religions' own guidebooks, unjustifiable suffering, innumerable inconsistencies of facts from one part of a religion's manifesto that are soundly contradicted in another place in the manifesto, etc.); accounts of the physical makeup of the world that are at odds with the makeup of the world that no one but the lunatic fringe would deny (age of the earth, heliocentrism, round[ish] earth, fossil record and archeology showing age of humanity, etc.); that the various religions are mutually exclusive and each one's adherents believe they have the real grapevine to he correct god; Occam's Razor; Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief; Argument from Evolution; Argument from Physical Minds; and so on. This is quite an abbreviated list.

Now I know that the religious may counter, "but what about the evidence and proofs for God's existence?" The problem is that all such "proofs" I am offered are logically baseless. Most beg the question by assuming the validity in the first instance of the Christian Bible or the Koran or the O.T. etc., or make an appeal to authority, or engage in post hoc ergo proptor hoc argument, or a host of other logical fallacies. Such arguments, thus, offered as evidence of God's existence, are no evidence at all.

There are certain assumptions that are implicit in what constitutes proof. An argument that provides logical evidence for some postulate cannot, by definition, engage in a recognized logical fallacy for the very reason that the fallacy has been recognized by the world at large (including philosophers that are theists) as a fallacy, i.e., as worthless and logically baseless in providing substantiation of the logical position being taken.

(snipping out five paragraphs)

So what are we ultimately left with? A host of disparate lines of evidence which tend to show that it is very likely the case that God does not exist, opposed by no evidence or extremely weak evidence that God does exist-- and this latter claim, offered by the people who refuse to provide any evidence to back their extraordinary claim when they have the burden of proof. When we combine all this together, the result is proof--not absolute proof--but strong inductive proof that is very likely that: The Christian God does not exist; the Judaic God does not exist; The Islamic God does not exist; The Sikhism God does not exist; The Jainist God does not exist; The Zoroastrian God does not exist; The Hindu Gods do not exist; The Osho God does not exist; The Animist/shamanist Gods do not exist; The Wiccan Gods do not exist; the Confucian Gods do not exist; The Shinto Gods do not exist; The Taoist Gods do not exist; The Vodun Gods do not exist; The Asatru Gods do not exist; The Druidist Gods do not exist; The Caodaism Gods do not exist; The Damanhur Gods do not exist; The Druse Gods do not exist; The Eckankar Gods do not exist; The Hare Krishna Gods do not exist; The Lukumi Gods do not exist; The Macumba Gods do not exist; The Mowahhidoon Gods do not exist The Native American Gods do not exist; The New Age Gods do not exist; The Romani Gods do not exist; The Santerian Gods do not exist; The Scientology Gods do not exist; The Thelema Gods do not exist; and Santa Claus does not exist.

Of course, If I'm wrong, but any one of the above religions that is not a particular theist's religion is right, or in the case that they're all wrong, that theist's chosen "true" god vanishes in a puff of logic.

Many people at least somewhat understand the weak atheist and agnostic stance on the almighty, but cannot understand the strong atheist position because since "anything's possible," saying "there is no God" is an untenable position.

Let's talk about the reality of Mickey Mouse again. If I am asked in the hypothetical, "will you concede that it is possible that Mickey Mouse is a real person?" I will say yes. This does not render me a Mickey Mouse agnostic. This is simply a concession to a philosophical triviality, only necessary to state when actually asked this question. Do I now need to alter the way I speak about Mickey Mouse as a fictional character or to include the possibility that I am wrong that he is fictional however absurd that notion is? We can't (and we don't) go around changing the way we speak of things to concede to such niggling "possibilities." If we did we would have to go around making this type of "possibility concession" for every statement we make. For instance, we would never be able to say with equanimity, "my car is in the shop." We would have to say "I believe my car is in the shop, although it's possible it isn't because all of reality may simply be an illusion." Thus, when I say "THERE IS NO GOD," I say it with the same level of confidence that a theist or anyone else in the world would say "I am sitting in a chair" or "the Mets lost last night" or "my refrigerator is broken."

With regard to the appeal to authority, citing Einstein, it's just that, an appeal to authority, but let's set the record straight:

Einstein in a letter to a fan:

"I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."

Finally, with regard to your equivocation of the word belief, as I also posted in another forum (partly quoting in one sentence another user there):

An untenable position. Atheism is a belief only to the extent that all knowledge is hypertechnically a belief. We do not mean this use of the word "belief." when we apply it to religion. In fact, used in this context, its really very similar to the oft-abused theistic notion that atheism is a religion. Atheism has no tenets; no belief system; no book of revealed truths; no moral code. By disbelieving some matter one is not 'saying' anything about that thing. "I don't believe in faeries." That's all atheists are saying, except that the thing in question is god, whom to us atheists, the not believing in is exactly the same as saying I don't believe in ____. The old aphorism (I used a variation before) goes: 'saying atheism is a religion is like saying baldness is a hair color.'

This misleading, loose use of the word "belief," reminds me very much of the way theists often use the word faith when talking about atheists, i.e., atheists have to have faith to not believe in god, therefore atheism is just as much a belief system or a religion. Quote:

faith:

1. noun: complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.

2. noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

When a Christian speaks of his faith, he refers to the second definition. When he wishes to assert that "atheists have faith, too," he must perforce mean the first, but his argument implies the second definition, nonetheless. Just because the English language uses the same word to denote both meanings is not license to use those meanings interchangeably.

Feel free to come by http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php and debate with us.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

When you cite as evidence of nonexistence the precept of “omnibenevolence verses monstrous accounts of evil in religions' own guidebooks, unjustifiable suffering,” you probably are aware that you refer to theodicy. There is more written on that subject than can be read, but let it suffice to say that few who have seriously tackled the realm of theodicy would agree that the objection makes God the obvious write-off that your brief assertion suggests.

“Innumerable inconsistencies of facts from one part of a religion's manifesto that are soundly contradicted in another place in the manifesto” arise more frequently in the teachings of some religions than others. You would find it insanely frustrating, for example, to try pinning down a single biblical contradiction in debate with an erudite Christian theologian, because, as you put it, “it's so easy to bend philosophical statements to many purposes,” and the words of the Bible are a case-in-point of this phenomenon. Some Christians would say that God made it this way on purpose. In any event, such an exchange with the Christian would not necessarily convince you that all of your proposed contradictions are invalid, but you might end up less inclined to contend that they are “soundly” contradicted than you are now.

Actually it's incredibly easy to pin down biblical contradictions in rather vast numbers. The problems come from the fact that most apologists refuse to comport themselves with the rules of logic. What you end up with is goal shifting, begging the question, appeals to the inexplicable and on and on. The failing is not in providing rather devastating contradictions/problems with the bible but in convincing theists to exercise the same logic and smarts that they do every day of their lives, that go out the window when rationalization and compartmentalization are necessary when it comes to their beliefs. I enjoy debating, but you know this isn't really the right forum. I'm not going to respond at length as I would if this was at a debate forum, but please understand that I have spent many hundreds of hours debating with theists and nontheists of all stripes, including very learned Christian scholars, and I am quite convinced of the soundness of the contradictions/problems. I am also equally convinced that debating religion, probably more than in any other area of debate, has almost no effect on the beliefs of those participating, and for that reason, I have grown somewhat less interested in continuing. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

“That the various religions are mutually exclusive and each one's adherents believe they have the real grapevine to he correct god” cannot prove God’s nonexistence, and isn’t necessarily evidence to that effect. It can prove that all but one of the monotheistic faiths’ gods are nonexistent, but not that God is nonexistent. Consider this: if the last piece of candy that was in a jar is missing, and each of three kids tells you that he is the one who has the piece of candy, their conflicting statements of exclusive possession do not prove that no piece of candy exists. Sure, it is possible that all three statements are incorrect and that none of the kids really has the piece of candy, but it is by no means inductively proven by their claims. The only thing that is proven by the contradiction is that at least two of the three are making an incorrect statement.

Short response: they're all equally as silly; the problem is that there's absolutely no reason to believe in a particular one unless your indoctrinated into it (no surprise: most Christian were raised christian, most hindus were raised hindu); only from the outside of a religion can you see how silly it all is; you're an atheist with regard to the religion in africa that believes the world was created out of hippo dung aren't you? Exercise that same skepticism with regard to your own. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Do the age of the earth, heliocentrism, round[ish] earth, fossil record and archeology showing age of humanity, etc. really prove that there is no God? Even inductively, they only prove something about the wording of the texts with which they appear to conflict. The chain of induction that you would have to link to God from there is awfully long, and every link can have a chink.

Short response: The bible is the inspired word of god according to it, but yet reveals that all its knowledge of the world is exactly what stone age sheepherders knew. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

“Occam's Razor; Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief; Argument from Evolution; Argument from Physical Minds; and so on. This is quite an abbreviated list.” This sounds a little like an argument from preponderance of evidence. As meritorious as may be the intellectual efforts behind such dogmata, I doubt that you would go so far as to claim that, even if the recorded reasoning of sophisticated intellects were to constitute valid evidence for or against theism, which is unlikely, there has been a preponderance of refutation over support. Many times more of the latter has surely been said and written by all manner of thinking men and women. Again, however, this would not prove anything about a deity’s existence, one way or another.

We will have to disagree. Remember that when you make an extraordinary claim, the burden is on you. Your religion is just as extraordinary as that of all the thousands throughout history whose believers were just as fervently convinced of the truth and real magic behind their magical flights of fancy. As Bertrand Russell once wrote:

I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

A host of logical fallacies can indeed render invalid any supposed evidence of God. The Abrahamic God is said to have made humankind after his image, which is thought by many to mean he gave humans free will, like that of God. According to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, God manifested physical evidence on many occasions, and some believed, yet most disbelieved. Why? Because they had free will. If God were to impose upon even one man or woman some kind of proof that is somehow supernaturally impossible to deny, then would not that be a revocation of free will? So what is left for humankind, in the realm of proof for the existence of God, becomes a matter of drawing lines between relative degrees of believability. I don’t know about Islam, but the other two Abrahamic faiths posit that God intentionally draws the line a long way from what the average person would consider conveniently believable. Here is an interesting parable in which Jesus is shown to invoke this tenet. Note the final line—it asserts that a certain measure of evidence has already been set forth for the characters to use as the basis for belief, and if it was insufficient then they will reject any additional evidence as well. The ease with which any supposed evidence for God may be escaped is also portrayed, from the standpoint of the book of Genesis, as a paramount gift from God. Atheists who have an evangelistic commitment to their belief in disbelief especially cherish that natural gift, because atheism appeals to the universal human taste for intellectual independence and, to a large extent, cultural rebellion. It did for me, at least.

The God of Abraham is portrayed as desiring acceptance through faith and hope, not through proof. Hope for what is seen, according to one of the Christian apostles, is no longer hope. Irritating argument, isn’t it? Too slippery, which is what makes a faith a faith and not a science. Like you said, there is no deductive proof. Inductive proof can be veraciously construed to be a matter of faith, beyond a certain point, since it relies upon the particular thread of deductions one is inclined to draw from the given evidence. Finally, if there is no proof, then who bears the burden of proof is moot.

That, my friend, is what is known as sophistry. I must, unfortunately beg off. I will read the rest of your response, it would be rude of me not to, but as I alluded to earlier, I am afraid I have little taste lately for this debate.

To object that “atheism is a belief only to the extent that all knowledge is hypertechnically a belief” might suggest that you rank a debate on the foundational topic of whether or not there is a God beneath the need for hypertechnicality. On the other hand, your considerable devotion to the cause indicates the contrary. I am under the impression that Socrates would demand all terms to be rather hypertechnically defined before he would deem them worthy of consideration (although a number of people reportedly didn’t like him for this, or so I am told.) According to more than one thinker, the question of God’s existence is less consequential to the individual human if God does not exist than if he does, but in the latter case it is of grave importance, for among other things it would mean that what happens after the individual’s death is infinitely longer in duration than natural life. Apart from personal safety, however, there would be a far greater concern of conscience. For one who values what is in common parlance “the right thing to do,” the existence of God would warrant an entire shift of loyalties and life priorities to the end of serving the purpose for which that God placed the person in a universe that God caused to exist. One cannot, of course, begin the search for God’s desire in earnest without at least some acknowledgment that there might be a God. Considering the potential magnitude that one end of the argument could bear, no position should be quickly dismissed on the grounds of hypertechnicality by a serious disputant.

If I were to take this argument to heart I would be just as likely to worship Harry Potter, a can of root beer or Zeus as I would your God. After all, they all could be real right? --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... root beer... that's real enough for sure -- Gurch 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Remaining on the subject of defining terms, I disagree that the first of your two definitions for faith is of necessity meant by the statement that atheists have faith. Atheists have faith by the following definition, from Houghton Mifflin’s American Heritage Dictionary: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” The Oxford American dictionary supports this as well. This is the same faith to which Christians refer, since the biblical definition of faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” A sane atheist must hope that the positivism upon which he ultimately relies for the evidence of his unseen postulate will be borne out as true after he dies, because if he is wrong it is logical to expect more serious consequences than would be incurred through acquiescence to belief in God. I would hope that an honest atheist would be willing to concede that inductive logic might be a shakier foundation than deductive upon which to stake issues of eternal moment. In order to be an honest party to debate, there must be a willingness to yield on that issue in the event that one confronts a duly persuasive argument to the effect of their veracity. Otherwise the debate is based solely on pride or faith rather than on reason. I’m not a logician, so I don’t pretend to be capable of presenting that argument.

Sorry about Einstein. I didn’t intend his name to be an appeal for proof, but merely an illustration of one well-known agnostic generally regarded as thoughtful about his position. His famous letter, which you posted, was my own source, as well. You see that he does not label himself with the word, agnostic, but defines himself as such. I was prompted to write to you, not entirely because of either the label or the definition that you apply to yourself on the User Page, but because of the conflict between the two. Your reply includes a thoughtful defense for your personal theology of atheology, but it departs quickly from the discrepancy in your tag’s definition by referring to my definitions as interpretations that bend philosophical statements. Actually, my definitions were just definitions from a dictionary, and it is the Wikipedia page on strong atheism that sets out to mince concepts. It’s informative, though, and provides a realm of material from which might be extrapolated something close to your abbreviated definition, but I would say that yours still defines agnosticism.

Nevertheless, your reply does clarify what you meant: you do appear to place your faith quite squarely in atheism, so as long as you are positively certain that atheism is the only belief about God that is true.

No. I am quite certain that I have no belief of God, for which Atheism is the word that is used. No matter how many times you repeat it, atheism is still not a belief system, it is a lack of one. We wouldn't need any word if the world would stop building shrines to bugaboos. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for filling your talk page with all this text. Thank you for the invitation to engage the philosophy buffs at IIDB. I do not have a strong taste for debating at great length what can’t reach a definite conclusion apart from faith. My own faith holds that an idol is anything placed higher in priority than God, so, though I cannot prove it outside of the parameters of my faith, I will submit that one’s own intelligence, and the capacity of the human mind, are commonly idols that supplant God in the hearts of men and women. The problem, therefore, is spiritual rather than intellectual; a lifetime of devastating logical interchange can’t put God on a person’s proverbial throne until the idols are unseated from God’s place thereon.--Projection70 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to you sir. The problem with debate (and those of us who have a natural tendency to engage in it) is that the last word is always sought. If you respond to all my responses, however, I will let that put this matter to rest. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)