User talk:Laurence Boyce/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Root of All Evil? cast gallery

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article "The Root of All Evil? cast gallery", suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pascal.Tesson 15:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pascal. It's been a fair while since I contributed to the said article, so I don't think I'll get involved. But thanks for letting me know. Laurence Boyce 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Actually, I'm also tempted to prod The Root of All Evil? track listings as it contains no context whatsoever and is somewhat of an odd article by itself. Maybe a merge would be more appropriate but then again, I don't know much about The Root of All Evil? so I don't want to start messing up other people's work. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother again but I'm cleaning up my watchlist and I've decided to merge The Root of All Evil? track listings back to The Root of All Evil?. Seems like a reasonable thing to do as the article provided no context and no substantial content. Feel free to implement a better idea though. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds reasonable. Laurence Boyce 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Petition

Hi Laurence, I stumbled across your user page because you edited a page I'm watching (A. C. Grayling). I'm surprised by your statement invoking other editors to sign a petition, without any explantion as to why they should do so. Furthermore, your reference to Christians as Jesus Freaks is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. Christians are people whose beliefs are no more, or less, valid than yours. Perhaps you might consider re-wording this "bit of fun".

Incidentally, I did look at the petition you're promoting. It apppears to be a device to restrict the freedom of parents to choose the type of education most suitable for their children (I would contend the rights of children are secondary in this matter). As such, I found it disppointing that Grayling has signed the petition. I've always admired him as someone who stands up for freedom. Clearly on this occasion he doesn't. Cheers, Arcturus 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The UK Education Act 1996 already promotes a Christian view making it mandatory for all state schools (we're not talking faith schools) to have a daily act or worship which must be of a "Christian Theme". Thus in contradiction to what you say on an equality of views (i.e. "...Christians are people whose beliefs are no more, or less, valid than yours...", with a non-Christian view in the state education in the UK this does not apply. Non-Christian parents can get their children removed from this but from experience this is very hard to do, it is disruptive to the children and they wonder why they are being excluded from the rest of the pupils. With small children this especially not very nice to have them removed from the school's assembly where in full view of the other pupils they are excluded from an activity. The "Christian" churches know this policy of exclusion will cause distress to children and thus vigorously promote this. It is thus understandable why Richard Dawkins considers this to be a form of child abuse. It is bad enough that state funding promotes a bias towards a Christian theme but then funds even more biased education. Your view of non-Christian parent freedom introduce a new twist to the word "freedom". Ttiotsw 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ttiotsw. It is indeed a matter for profound embarrassment that we continue to organise our children's education in the new millennium around competing ancient mythologies. I fear we may find ourselves paying for this lunacy for some time to come. And we should certainly take great care when speaking of "freedom" in education, as it will invariably turn out that we are in fact speaking of the freedom of parents to impose their wishes upon their children; which children, to whom if true freedom of expression were granted, might choose no such thing.

But returning to your original remarks, Arcturus, you have made an assertion so astonishing that, try as hard as I might, I really cannot let go. In all apparent seriousness, you have stated that "Christians are people whose beliefs are no more, or less, valid than yours." Though superficially plausible, I trust that on a moment's reflection you will realise how erroneous this is.

Chief amongst those who will take issue with your statement are, of course, religious believers themselves. No serious Christian will consider his beliefs to be equally as valid as mine; rather he will conceive of them as inhabiting an altogether higher realm: that of revealed truth, accessible only through faith. To place such beliefs on a par with the paltry mortal findings of history, science, and philosophy, is not only an insult to the Creator, but is to commit the fatal error of subjecting revelation to reason; a trial which, as Hume pointed out long ago, "it is by no means fitted to endure."

So perish the thought that religious beliefs, being essentially of Divine origin, should be respected to the same degree as my own poor fallible and faltering notions. My beliefs should merely be accorded a respect proportionate to such reasonings and evidences as I may supply, and in the full knowledge that I may in time be wholly disproved. Whereas religious beliefs can only be deserving of the highest honour and unquestioning regard; or alternatively of the utmost contempt.

Laurence Boyce 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-religious rant is verging on the fanatical and I have no desire to debate the subject with you; Wikipedia is not really the place for it. I will just say the following; if I want to send my children to a so-called "faith" school, who the hell are you to say that I shouldn't have the freedom to do so? Arcturus 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanatical? I thought I was very well reasoned on this occasion, though I say so myself. And who am I to say no to faith schools? Merely somebody who has no particular desire to inhabit a world fractured by competing religious certainties. And to think that not one single tenet of religion has ever be proven to everybody's satisfaction. No of course not, because that's not the way it works. You have to have faith.

Ah, "faith" – that very antithesis of the principle of free enquiry which should inform every child's education. Please don't show any workings on this occasion children; just repeat the truth as revealed from on high. The normal rules of rational discourse don't apply here – even the laws of physics need not apply (we call such exceptions "miracles"). What a delightful oxymoron "faith school" is.

So yes, by all means send your children to such a place if you wish to betray them from the outset.

Laurence Boyce 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Please review Wikipedia:User page. I believe that your "fun" section on your user page is in violation of this guideline, and I ask that you remove that content. (I personally don't find it offensive, but a large number of contributors here probably would, and since it doesn't follow the guideline, I recommend not arguing about it.)

With regards to your request for visitors to the user page to click on an external link to sign a petition, while that may also technically violate the guideline, I believe that it is not offensive in its wording, and so I will not make an issue of it.

You're clearly a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I hope that you'll understand the need to make this minor adjustment. If you have any questions on the above, please let me know. Thanks. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. I can see Jimbo Wales has stated that "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea," and naturally I hold Jimbo in the highest regard. On the other hand, I do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time fighting off the anonymous trolls whom Jimbo sees fit to allow virtually unfettered access to Wikipedia, judging them no doubt to do more good than harm on balance, but possibly failing to take into account a consequent deterioration in user morale.

I'll think about it!

Laurence Boyce 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change. If there is anything I can be of assistance with in the future, please drop me a note. In the meantime, you might find User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia to be useful. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. Laurence Boyce 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Selfish Gene 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Selfish Gene 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please delete it. Laurence Boyce 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sam Harris 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sam Harris 1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done what you suggest. Laurence Boyce 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Atheist films

How about Atheistic films?--P-Chan 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Criticism of religion and atheism are not the same thing. Laurence Boyce 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this film sponsored by the Rational Response Squad?--P-Chan 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The film is currently being handed out as a prize by the RRS, but it had no connection with them originally. Laurence Boyce 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however, they are sponsoring it though. This, plus the association with the Blasphemy Challenge, plus several reviews on Atheist/Humanist websites makes this a staple Atheist film. If you look at some other examples, like films in the Christian film category, you'll notice that there is some wiggle-room as to what can goes in and what doesn't go into these categories.--P-Chan 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Atheism is a philosophy which posits that there is no god or gods. This film is not about that philosophy. Rather it is a critique of fundamentalist Christianity with special reference to the question of the historicity of Jesus. Laurence Boyce 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right it's not about Atheism. So again, I'll ask you if the term "atheistic film" sounds better to you? In my opinion, your definition for film categories is too narrow, far too narrow when compared to the standard set by the other film categories on Wikipedia. If this film is endorsed by the Blasphemy challenge/Rational Response squad, as well as by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the RavingAtheist then I'm going to say that it is very much an atheistic film. I encourage you to really elaborate on your points here.--P-Chan 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From memory, I don't recall the term "atheist" being mentioned once in the movie. But I appear to have lost the argument, so that's fine. Laurence Boyce 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Richard Carrier.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please delete it. Laurence Boyce 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sam Harris 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sam Harris 2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chowbok. Looks like we'll end up with no image at all then. Laurence Boyce 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:TOChidden

Greetings Laurence Boyce, I noticed that you've just removed this template from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What was your logic for doing so? The usage of TOChidden is to reduce massive amounts of blank space in the lead areas of longer articles (as we see the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article now has). (→Netscott) 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons. Firstly, if people wish to minimise the TOC, they may do so in one click. Secondly, as things stood the layout was adversely affected on account of the inclusion of the Infidel book image. But please reverse it if you wish. Laurence Boyce 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response. With the exception of your second reason the same logic applies. If people want to see the TOC they may do so in one click. Any other logic? (→Netscott) 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the logic works both ways. Basically the positioning of the book image is causing a layout problem. Laurence Boyce 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is not a massive issue whether or not it displays on that one article but I just wanted to better understand your reasoning. I will not revert you at this point and see how other editors respond but I may do so at a later time. Thanks for explaining your thinking to me. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You once knew him as “Devilmaycares”; you now know him as “Burntapple”.

An/I — Burntapple, sock-puppet of Grazon

He's a bad apple alright. —SlamDiego 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Slam. Laurence Boyce 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He returned as Dcker to twice more edit “Brian Flemming” and otherwise to pursue his odd agenda on 10 and 11 July. The Dcker is now also blocked. —SlamDiego_←T 05:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slam. Laurence Boyce 07:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Julia Sweeney.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Julia Sweeney.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Bull. Laurence Boyce 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ian McEwan (ROAE).jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Michael Bray (ROAE).jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Bray (ROAE).jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Climbing Mount Improbable.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Dawkins Delusion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Dawkins Delusion.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ted Haggard (ROAE).jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oliver Curry (ROAE).jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock-puppet?

Hi - in case you are not watching Talk:Richard Dawkins, you might like to be warned about this recent addition, in which it is alleged that User:Laurence Boyce is a sockpuppet of Richard Dawkins. I have deleted it from the Dawkins talk page as irrelevant, and maybe it can simply be ignored - but I have no idea what lies behind this anonymous accusation, and I thought you might like to know! Good luck! Snalwibma (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Laurence Boyce (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing happened on Dawkins' userpage, here. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an odd one, because as you can see from my contribs, I haven't done much at all since August. Laurence Boyce (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also a sockpuppet allegation here, at Master of Puppet's talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3