Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism/Archive 1

message: I think one of our goals should be to try to open people's minds about Atheists and Atheism.  Not to "convert" people, but more to teach people about it.  I think too many people have a very negative view of the subject, and this wikiproject can probably go a long way to change that.  --Kbdank71 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this project should do either open people's minds as such or jion people to convert, this is an encyclopedia, we should inform be creating good articles that become featured. By doing this we show sence of things and a contrast in belief. JMcD 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal 

message: For one, we need a template to put on all atheism-related articles. For example, we need something like this: , except it needs to be for Wikiproject Atheism. Thanks! Hezzy 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Vote goes for the Flying Spaghetti monster, i have been touched by his noodely appendage--Goatan 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong vote against the FSM or Unicorn or similar: these are parody religions intended to be (at least somewhat) humorous. Atheism is not in this category. There's enough misunderstanding about atheism in the world already - let's not add to it. -- Writtenonsand 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second Writtenonsand's vote against such an icon. Making associations with parody religions and atheism would be a mistake. I think Atheism's lack of iconography could make it difficult to come up with a more appropriate icon; I cannot think of any. Atheist-Expat 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To Help 

message: Is anyone free to join this project?
Also, might I suggest the inclusion of Secular ethics on the related article list? Starghost (talk | contribs) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, in fact, I wanted people to help write the article since I ran out of ideas long ago, which is also one of the reasons I nominated it for AID. Anyway, thanks. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation 

message: I noticed the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an Article on Atheism. I wonder if we want to go so far as to list all other related "Religions" or if it would be preferable to list the categories instead: Category:Fictional deities, & Category:Joke religions. Thoughts? --Jade 09:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink Unicorn - v - other "religions" 

message: *I have been slowly adding citations to List of atheists, and have requested help on the article's talk page but it simply has stalled. If every member above just added 3 references we would have a sourced list in no time. A list of this nature without sources is useless as a source of information. Any help greatly appreciated. Just googling the name of and entry in quotes with the word atheist will often find a good source.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article requests 

message: Just a peep-peep to note that I moved (renamed) the Wiccan Atheism page and added further details. If anyone has an interest in the subject, please update what I've done, but it's about 5 times bigger than it was yesterday and it's now listed under a term used by the general population when they discuss the topic. So I consider it successful.--Jade 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiccan Atheism = Atheist Witchcraft 

message: Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section.  This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased.  In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists.  No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions.  Please leave reactions on the article talk page.  Thank you. Durova 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joan of Arc]] 

message: 68.5.175.227 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for deletion but don't feel too strongly about it either. Doesn't seem noteworthy to me; Wikipedia is not a huge pile of junk. I might be wrong though; how do you legitimately quantify "significance" of internet phenomena? Nonetheless, my vote is to delete. More discussion is always appreciated (:  Rashad9607 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evil Atheist Conspiracy? 

message: Gosh golly I can't seem to find an e-descriptions of Adevism that isn't a citation of Britannica (as is the single-line Wikipedia article), or that isn't a citation of the wiki stub itself. I'll try and find more, hopefully a text of Müller himself. But based on what I see of Adevism, it doesn't seem to earn it's own article. Rather, it seems merely like atheism targeted against Hinduism. Delete and add material to Atheism? And relevant Vedanta article, perhaps?  Rashad9607 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was originally going to say merge it with Vedanta, but I don't think it would add anything to that article (and therefore wikipedia as a whole) except "some people disagree with it. here's some info about one, obscure guy with super-sweet sideburns who did!". in other (shorter) words, I think it would be worthless. So, I'm leaning towards delete unless someone can change my mind! SnaX 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adevism]] 

message: Hi all. I started an article on Daniel Harbour's book, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism. A while later, a user (Moon&Nature) invited me to join in with this project. I consider myself a fairly competent atheist as well as somebody who strives for neutrality on all articles, controversial or otherwise. I would be glad to help out in any way I can. -Neural 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd be glad to help out 

message: New to the place. Wonder, how is this project related to Brights_movement? I know there are atheist which do believe in ghosts or other supernaturals, but I think we should find a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eipipuz (talk • contribs) 
:I am not sure your question makes sense. The brights movement, as I read in the article, has nothing to do with ghosts, and it does seem to have plenty to do with atheism. You should find a link to what now? Sign your comments. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bright is a person with a naturalistic worldview with no unsupported beliefs in supernatural explanations. There is no "link" between the being a bright and believing in ghosts. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. A bright would only believe in a ghost if ghosts were well-demonstrated by overwhelming evidence to exist. There is no solid evidence for ghosts, or any credible scientific theory supporting ghosts, and so you will not catch many(any?) brights believing in them. -Neural 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brights movement 

message: Does anyone here have any knowledge of Jonathan Miller's documentary series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief? The article is rather lacklustre and thin on information. It could use some work, preferably by somebody who has the documentary on video. It's a shame the article is so shabby since it was a thoughtful and well-presented series. Unfortunately, it has been a while since I saw it and I don't have it on tape. Compare that article to the one on The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins. It would be nice to get the article to a similar standard. -Neural 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief 

message: There's a lot going on in the discussion page for the article Critique of atheism, with a couple of Christians joining the discussion and trying to make it more "neutral" by adding criticism and removing responses to them. I think it's a good opportunity to improve that article. I recommend you guys go check it out just in case they overdo it. Starghost (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Critique of atheism]] 

message: The God Delusion by the brilliant scientist Richard Dawkins is out now. Feel free to track down a copy and help build up a good enyclopedic article about the book. -Neural 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The God Delusion]] 

message: I'm going at add a wikipage on Victor J. Stenger. You'll probably know him as a skeptic and given he's very much into refuting theistic origins of things so he's very much an active atheist and he says as much. He's still alive and active AFAIK. It's my first new page. It'll take me over the weekend to add the initial content. I think he's notable enough as I'm hitting enough references to him on a number of other articles plus he has a number of books on Amazon. Ttiotsw 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, be bold and add as much as you can. You can bet there are a lot of religious people adding a lot less notable stuff to push their view. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - It'll  be more than this weekend as I got bogged down on just that issue on the The Quran and science page. Whew - talk about flogging a dead horse. Sometimes I just wonder why I bother keeping with my ideals of religious Pluralism ! But it's coming very very soon and I want it to read right first time as I suspect I'll be watched closely on any page edits. His bibliography and people who have referenced him in their books makes me wonder why he already hasn't a page. Is there something I'm missing here ? I guess I'll find out. Ttiotsw 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My draft is in a sandbox at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ttiotsw/Sandbox-Test1 Please add stuff as you see fit. Ttiotsw 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is good enough to be put into a real page where people could make more significant changes. Anyway, good work. Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to add wikipage on Victor J. Stenger. 

message: I'm currently in the middle of a major revamp to atheism, to attempt to trim down some of the bloated sections, expand some of the stubby ones, and add lots and lots of inline references. As part of this endeavor, I am planning to create a few more daughter articles for atheism so that important information which has been lost since past versions of the article (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&oldid=64381440) can be included on Wikipedia without bloating atheism, in articles like Implicit and explicit atheism. In line with articles like this and eutheism and dystheism, I would like to know what you all think about the possibility of merging strong atheism and weak atheism into a single article, Strong and weak atheism? My rationale is posted to Talk:Weak atheism. -Silence 18:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atheism]] revamp 

message: Hey folks! I have been working to get Portal:Nontheism in shape. I was hoping that if there were some interested people around here, I could get some help filling out the content? More than anything we need an "intro," but we also need help getting our quotes filled in. Of course, we could definitely use help getting more "Did you know?" bits, and future content for bios/articles. Hope to see you folks around! --Wolf530 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nontheism Portal 

message: I came across over 700 links to this organization, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The site has a ton of ads but on the other hand, it has content (and a Wikipedia article). 
Normally, such an ad-intensive site with so many links gets attention at WikiProject Spam for further investigation. Even if it's not spam, many links may often get deleted as not meeting the external links guideline. I've left a note at WikiProject Spam asking others to look at some of these and see what they think. 
Even some non-profit organizations will add dozens of links to Wikipedia since links in Wikipedia are heavily weighted in Google's page ranking systems. (If interested, see the article on Spamdexing for more on this).
You can see all the links by going to this this "Search web links" page. I encourage you to look at Wikipedia's external links guideline then look at the links in the articles you normally watch. Also, if you don't mind, please also weigh in at WikiProject Spam with your opinions. If you see links to pages that you don't think add additional value beyond the content already in an article, feel free to delete them, but please don't go mindlessly deleting dozens of links. (Per WP:EL, links that don't add additional value should be deleted but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "spam").
Thanks for your help and for providing some second opinions. --A. B. 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religioustolerance dot org 

message: I added the question "Will you also help prevent atheism-based censorship throughout Wikipedia?"  Which was deleted without discussion. Hmm... To be more specific. Atheistic articles (like Richard Dawkins, Russell's Teapot) appear to be protected by a group of atheist editors whose response to any material the appears to be critical of their positions is to delete it. Is Atheism really such a weak creed that it has to supress any criticism? NBeale 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly just a minor point regarding WP:No Personal Attacks: Describing editors as "atheist" is talking about the editor not about their contributions. Also, an article cannot be "atheistic" as it is an innanimate object any more than a "rock" is atheistic. It can only be interpreted by an observer as having content which is usualy associated with someone who has an atheistic viewpoint but that doesn't mean it is not neutral. There is a difference. I think you need to be clear if the articles mentioned are not neutral as opposed to your opinion on the actual content. Many articles related to the scientific theory of evolution are vandalised and I'm guessing anyone here thanks you when you correct this. Many watch for vandalism (including bots) and it is best to WP:Assume good faith with any reverts on the part of these editors. If you find any censorship of pages e.g. blanking or other styles of vandalism like innapropriate tags then you can revert this too. If you have examples of vandalism by people then please take that up on the article talk page or with the person on their talk page. To make any more claims regarding so-called censorship you really need to be more specific with which edits else you're just making unsubstantiated accusations of poor faith edits. Ttiotsw 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: The issue is that ordinals get used when comparing religions (as in my religion is bigger than your religion - a kind of argumentum ad numerum.) As an example of use of an ordinal is in the Islam page e.g., "Islam is the second largest religion in the United Kingdom, and many other European countries, including France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.[4][5]". My argument is that the use of the ordinal second in this article is not right as it disregards the very large number of "others". It should thus be "third". If all groupings are included and not just ignored as a population, then secular groupings (see Major_religious_groups for examples), must also be included. In some countries this is a moot point but secular groupings in Europe easily outnumber all other minor non-Christian religions and to disregard this group is disregarding a significant portion of post-Enlightenment European ideas. Is it thus valid for us to tweak these ordinals if the reference cited has a non-religious grouping (whether of not the grouping is considered to be a "faith" or not by other editors or the cite). Ttiotsw 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing ordinals used Argumentum ad numerum on faith pages. 

message: I have noted that this project does not yet engage in assessment. I am a member of WikiProject Religion, which does engage in assessments. I was wondering if this project would have any objections to the Religion project setting up its banner in a way similar to WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Military history, and others, which have the "parent" banner on top with the assessment criteria and a section below indicating which particular projects have specific interest in the article. I could set up the Religion banner in a way to accomplish this. However, given the complexity involved, I would not want to do so and have things changed back later. Please inform me if this arrangement would be to your satisfaction or not, so I can know how to proceed. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: The Atheism article has been nominated for GA status, and a reviewer has placed the nomination for hold for reasons cited at the Talk:Atheism#GA on hold page. Any efforts to address these concerns would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atheism]] article on hold as GA candidate 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: A new user has created this article / category. I am wondering if the article portion is worth salvaging?  --George100 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated the category for deletion, on the basis of it containing only a single article. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 10. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:The Great American God Out]] 

message: <removed>
: I have re-inserted this inadvertently amusing piece, not because of any intrinsic merit beyond the ability to misquote Einstein, but because Wikipedia is not censored. Larklight (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While Wikipedia isn't a sopabox, this is a ban on adding content such as the above (and more expressly, banning its addition to article pages. While it justifies removing any overt flaxing from articles (and indeed anything not in line with NPOV), it does not justify or allow its removal from talk pages. Please do not remove it again Larklight (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't overlooked any of it. But no-where does it allow you to remove content from talk pages. In good faith I'm going to avoid revetring this time, but if you can't find a section of policy which allows you to remove content from talk pages, I will. Not feeding the trolls means ignoring them, not blanking themLarklight (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DENY, which admittedly is only an essay, might be seen as applying. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That discusses ignoring vandalism, and is mainly refering to article pages. Unless you (or Geroge100) can come up with a reference justifing the removal of other editors content from talk pages, I will have no hoice byut to continue to revert you. On this matter you need specific justification- general things that vandalism is bad is not enough. Additionally, you are giving far more attention to trolls than I am- I would simply ignore, and possibly leave a message on their talkpage (if it wasn't already fulll of them, I'm uncertain as to what to do at that stage) Larklight (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Talk pages are meant to discuss their articles. In this case, this talk page is here in order to discuss the Wikiproject, and only that. Wikipedia is not a forum\message board, and these talk pages are no place to preach or discuss topics in such a manner. The above remarks should be removed, not on the grounds of censorship or anything like that, but solely because it is not relevant to the Wikiproject. — Kieff | Talk 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for the love of God -- pardon the expression -- I've provided TWO: namely WP:SOAP and the honking big notice at the top of this very page, which reads, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Atheism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article." I could throw in number three Do Not Feed the Trolls -- toss in a fourth --  namely the track record of the single-purpose account who added this here and anywhere else he could. Finally, there is a fifth reason you've overlooked when you adopted your air of moral superiority about trolls, namely that you don't ignore trolls by NOT reverting them nor by giving them a platform: you've forgotten that all-important first step from the "Revert Block Ignore". --Calton | Talk 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appologies- you are indeed right, as the message on the top of the page shows. Removal is entirely justifiable, but only after making reference to that, the only section to justify removal- which you hadn't preveously.Larklight (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to believe 

message: Why? Buddhism can be nontheistic - but that doesn't mean that it is completely atheistic. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Buddhists can be either theist or atheist.  The atheistic segments would qualify it for this project, IMO. Aleta (Sing) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The articles relating to atheistic Buddhism would clearly fall within the scope of this project, given their atheistic content. But, I guess in general, except for those articles, it probably wouldn't be particularly useful to tag Buddhism articles with the Atheism project, as their content wouldn't necessarily relate to the subject. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism a WP:Atheism  page 

message: As there are 2 wikiproject tags, I figured it would be best to use one that is most developed and most widely used. Any objections on me adding a notice on the wiki template Template:Wpa2 (with out the class parameter) saying to use the other wiki template Template:Wpa? The former one conveniently had only 2 articles tagged by it and I already changed them to the newer version so adding the noticeboard wont cause any problems I think? If there are any objections, please feel free to revert. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't see that the other even links anywhere. Feel free to turn it into a redirect, if you want. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not at all in use, should we just delete it? Aleta (Sing) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 WikiProject Tags 

message: Hello. I am interested in getting some different perspectives on the introduction wording and inclusion criteria for the List of atheists. These are periodically causes of some controversy, and I just want to make sure that whatever the intro and inclusion criteria are, they have the support of wider consensus. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of atheists]] 

message: I came across Spiritual Atheism, and noticed it was new, only edited by one primary editor, and not incorporated with the existing series of articles on atheism. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case you were unaware of it. What you do with this knowledge is now in your hands;) (crossposted to the main Atheism article) -Andrew c [talk] 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never dealt with category deletion before - is there any reason not to nominate this? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the conversation just above this one, there is no reason to delete notable topics (or categories) simply because they were poorly maintained.  Is there a category similar to :Category:Criticism of atheism already, because if there isn't I think this should stay and could certainly get populated with relevant entries.  I haven't looked at the other entry yet, but I wanted to weigh in on the category.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few similar categories, actually. See the categories and articles in the :Category:Criticism of religion. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual Atheism 

message: In intend to create a list of all notable Dutch atheists. The List of atheists article is way too long and yet very incomplete. That's why I want to create this list. I am Dutch myself and have access to sufficient reliable sources. I think I could list at least 100 notable dutchmen. When finished, it might look like another list of mine, List of Dutch vegetarians. My idea is to use a table with four columns: Name, Dates, Very Short Bio, Quote confirming atheism and note to reference. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd very much like to hear it. Kind Regards, Baldrick90 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your list of Dutch vegetarians is very nice! Have you looked at Talk:List of atheists, where discussions of layout and possible options are being considered. In the end, we don't even need to be consistent, that's the nice thing about Wikipedia. I'd much rather you give us such a nice list rather than spending years agreeing on exact technical detail, but on the other hand some discussion on that page might be useful before setting out. Nice work, Merzul (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your reaction. I have added a reaction on the topic 'what to do with the List of atheists article' (See ) and after thinking it through I am not sure If I'm gonna continue, at least for now. I reached the conclusion a list of atheists by nationality is problematic, so I guess I'll wait it out and see whatever consensus we may reach. Do you have an idea? Greetings, Baldrick90 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Dutch atheists 

message: I want a Wikiproject barnstar to award User:Oolon Colluphid for his enthusiastic work on the list of atheists, but we don't have one. I created something that looks like this:
Can someone help make this nicer, or are there other ideas for a WikiProject barnstar/award? Merzul (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks fine as is. I'm also pleased that you chose a reference to the original and genuine atheist deity (MPBUHNFAE), instead of this false new idol called the flying spaghetti monster. Nick Graves (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Barnstar 

message: If I could get some input at Talk:H._L._Mencken#Contradiction_2, it'd be much appreciated. Leaving this note as Atheism was identified as one of the Wikiprojects in the article's scope. Daniel (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input 

message: User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend, my atheist userbox, has been recently nominated for deletion. I would sincerely appreciate any input at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend. Thank you, +Hexagon1 (t) 08:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox nominated 

message: NPOV dispute. Peter jackson (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC [[Buddhism]] 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: I can't make any more edits today because I might be violating 3RR so I thought I'd bring it over here and hope a neutral third party might clarify this. 
The article has a section detailing the role of atheism in totalitarian regimes. It has a criticism by Dinesh D'Souza going on about Pol Pot, and then it has a rebuttal by Sam Harris, which states that "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok." Fine. This is a direct rebuttal to the accusation about atheism being responsible for people like Pol Pot and Stalin, and its perfectly sourced.
User:Stuthomas4 then adds "Furthermore in his book "The End Of Faith", Harris states that religion is by far "the most potent source of human conflict, past and present." I thought this was unneccessary, and wrote in the history that "There already IS a rebuttal by the same person that directly confronts the atheism/dictator controversy" and "its not even a rebuttal about the criticism about atheism. Its just a statement that religion is responsible. Sam Harris's initial statement is more than enough". All Stuthomas4 has said is that "It is indeed a rebuttal. Leave my edit alone."
So I was wondering is if the intial edit was right and if the additonal quote by Harris is necessary.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of atheism]] and Sam Harris 

message: Currently, 201 articles are assigned to this project, of which 99, or 49.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
:{{}}
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Atheism 

message: This article needs serious help. If someone could go play with it, that would be appreciated. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jason Yeldell]] 

message: Has an article been started on this?  I'm thinking of starting one if not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheist Bus Campaign.  Never mind. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist bus campaign 

message: Subscribed this project to User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription, by transcluding that box to the WikiProject main page. It has to be on the WikiProject main page for it to work - so please don't remove it - thank you! Cirt (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup listing 

message: The section about range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range) has some "citation needed" and "Clarify" tags. These should be adressed and the article should be removed from the featured list, until those tags are taken care of.--Nwinther (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism should no longer be featured article 

message: Talk:Rick_Warren#Discussion--Cerejota (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting rfc 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T  13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every WikiProject? That seems pretty stupid. Ilkali (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say "overkill", boys and girls? I knew you could. LadyofShalott 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is much easier than just looking under Preferences for my watchlist to figure out which dozen WikiProjects I am watching. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#PLOT 

message: nominated Omnipotence paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omnipotence paradox 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps invitation 

message: User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages 

message: Hello. I've noticed that the current article on New atheism is fairly lacking - at present it only presents the views of people critical of the movement, and not those of the members themselves (never mind people who're described as members but disagree with the ideals attributed to the movement from outside). I'm finding it a little difficult to come up with sources to rectify this, though. I've read lots of blog posts about 'New Atheism' by atheists, but most of the published sources around seem to be books criticising the movement. Does anyone know of any good sources that can make things a little less one-sided? If so I'd love to hear from you on the talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Atheism sources? 

message: The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:
* AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
* AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
* AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
* Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.
Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.
The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:
* WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
* Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
* WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
* WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
* WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
* WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"
In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.
Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Dispute Resolution 

message: I can't understand why Christian violence has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: nominated Douglas Adams for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Douglas Adams]] 

message: Hi folks, over the past few months I've learned quite a bit about how Wikipedia works, and how the editing process works. Most importantly, I've learned that on heated topics related to religious or other "sacred" topics, a certain POV can be pushed by editors to the point that it dominates the article. Mormonism, and the "LDS Article Wiki Project" is evidence of that. I've been getting PWNED by Mormons from the LDS wiki project that have dominated the West_Ridge_Academy article, a place that can be best described at this website: www.MormonGulag.com. Every time I make an edit, this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Storm_Rider reports me for revert wars and has me banned. He knows me from another Mormon-related website I participate on (although I don't know him) and his personal mission has become controlling this Wiki article and protecting the Mormon Church's image on Wikipedia. Any help or advice, or maybe the support of a prolific editor will even this out. Thanks. --66.74.10.34 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this talk page really isn't the best place to ask about that. Please do not assume that editors here have a POV, since that really runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. You might want to consider registering, instead of editing as an IP. I've looked at your page, the other editor's page, and the article to which you refer. Neither you nor the other editor has been blocked. You have received warnings that are intended to stop things before they escalate to a block. Based on the article's edit history, it looks like the other editors have reasons to think the warnings you received were justified. If you feel the article has POV content problems, you should discuss it at the article's talk page, and if that does not work, you can start an RfC. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, you can raise it at WP:Editor assistance as a first step. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help! 

message: Users who have edited atheism and like articles should be very familiar with the wide variety of definitions and complex typologies (e.g., weak vs. strong, implicit vs. explicit) in use for the term atheism, and the many connotations surrounding these definitions. This makes the term particularly ill-suited for a neutral, encyclopedic bio-listing, since it requires Wikipedia to (1) weigh in, for the list, on which definition is "best", in order to be consistent in our selection criteria; and (2) weigh in on which real-life people fit those criteria, and hence on the real-life views of people who may, for example, assert nonbelief in deities yet decry being called an "atheist". This is particularly legally problematic because we're using a term, "atheism", which some (including living persons) (perhaps unfairly) perceive as having a negative connotation, and have said they prefer not to be so labeled — yet we are currently labeling them as "atheists" because they are non-theists, and this broader definition seems to be the one we're really employing on the lists, to avoid the shades of grey of using 'strong atheism' or the like as a definition.
Fortunately, there seems to be an easy solution to this problem. Simply transfer the list to List of nontheists, a synonym for '(broad/weak) atheism' lacking the ambiguity and connotations of atheism, thus ideally suited for an NPOV encyclopedia listing nonbelievers in deities. There is currently a very large, and growing, support for this move on Talk:List of atheists, but I wanted to alert this broader community of editors to the discussion in order to have their recommendations heard, since List of atheists serves as the hub for all our non-theistic biographies. As such, feel free to join in on the talk page if you support or oppose such a move.
I realize I may be putting the move at risk by appealing to a group of editors who will obviously have something of a favorable opinion for the term "atheism" ahead of time. :) But our discussion and decision can only benefit from hearing more perspectives, and I trust you'll carefully consider policies like WP:NPOV and WP:LIVE before simply condemning the term 'nontheist' for being a bit less common. Sometimes utility and neutrality demand a slightly drier, less colloquially ubiquitous term for listings of people—especially when its meaning will be even more simple and self-evident, even to those who have never seen the word! -Silence (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Silence, for bringing the potential move to this project's attention. Interested editors can get an idea of what the renamed and tweaked list might look like by visiting User:Nick Graves/List of nontheists. Please be bold in editing this sandbox, if you see ways in which it can be improved. Nick Graves (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the move is inappropriate, I believe the best solution would be to simply maintain a list of verifiable atheists, perhaps with sublists for weak/strong to the extent that this can be verified. A separate list of verifiable agnostics, and lists of theraveda buddhists or other classes which one might judge should otherwise fall in the 'nontheist' category. Having 'list of atheists' link to a list which includes persons that are not atheist is problematic. Unomi (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving [[List of atheists]] 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for editors to help manage religion related content 

message: Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes to Atheism Article 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions 
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people 

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions 
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: Please add the 2010 Global Atheist Convention to the project. -- Marawe (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Global Atheist Convention 

message: Okip   01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced living people articles bot 

message: A point-of-view discussion has been initiated at NPOV notice board to discuss the deletion of material from the Criticism of Judaism article.  The material (seen here) discussed how critics claim that Judaism sometimes is used to justify or motivate violence, particularly violence in the Middle East in modern times.  (Disclaimer: I am the editor that contributed the deleted material).  --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm uncomfortable with the implication that criticism of a particular religion would necessarily fall within the area of interest of this particular Wikiproject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the atheism project is no more the counter for Judiasm than criticism of basketball should come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. tedder (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV discussion regarding [[Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the previous section. Why would this project care? tedder (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth 

message: There has been some question of whether Atheism and Nontheism are distinct entities or should be merged. Please weigh-in here. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they seriously going to merge nontheism with atheism? I am absolutely shocked and amazed. This project should be trying to develop these distinctions, not let them get plowed under. Greg Bard 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atheism]] vs [[Nontheism]] 

message: The light brown background color (#D2B48C) used in the template is so light, it is hard to read the white words on them (for example: on the "Theories" group title).  But notice how well the dark blue words show up for the group titles that are wikilinks [edit: some titles were changed to black, see post below].  This same color theme is also extensively in the Atheism portal.  Anyone else think the color contrast should be stronger?   Maybe it is just my computer monitor.   If there is consensus to improve the contrast, perhaps it would be simplest to just change the overlaid text color from white to black?  or to dark brown?   Whatever the decision is (if there ends up being any consensus), the same theme should be applied to the Atheism portal, of course.  --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To illustrate, I changed some of the group-title text from white to black in the draft sidebar above; but I left "Theories" the original white.  I also made "Concepts" dark brown to see what that looks like.  The black (in "Related Topics") stands out more; but the dark brown (in "Concepts") seems more artistic.  --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the three, I think the black is easiest to read (and white the hardest). Maybe use a darker brown, something in between what's there now and the black?LadyofShalott 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a new, darker brown in "Academic Areas" group title (and left the original medium brown in "Concepts" group title).  The "Academic Areas" dark brown may be a happy medium combining good contrast with  aesthetics. --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! LadyofShalott 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All group titles now use the new dark brown (in the draft sidebar above).  The two titles that are wikilinks (Atheists and Literature) appear as another color, of course. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Color theme has insufficient contrast?

message: It is probably best if further discussion on the sidebar template be conducted at Template_talk:Atheism2, since that is where editors will probably go, now that the alternate template is in the articles. --Noleander (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A new sidebar template has been proposed.  It can be viewed at Template_talk:Atheism2 - please comment there.  Thansk, --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion to template Talk page

message: left The new sidebar Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar has been added to several articles within the Template:Irreligion footer template (but not the pure "Atheism" articles, which still use the original Template:atheism2 template).   Regarding the new sidebar, the image at the top of the sidebar is the word "Atheism" and perhaps a better image could be found that encompasses all the topics within the Irreligion scope.  I threw one together (shown at right) but it looks a bit simplistic.  Any other ideas?   Below it is shown within the sidebar.  Superseded by discussion below.  Removing sidebar from this Talk page to minimize confusion. --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't like it. I like the archaeological "atheos" one better, because it looks more scholarly, and it doesn't bother me that it only refers to one specific subset of irreligion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it looks pretty ugly.  One drawback to the "atheos" image is that it is written in Greek, and not many users will know what it is saying.  In the context of the Atheism article, or within the Template:atheism2 template it is not too bad, because the word "Atheism" is right above it, so people can figure it out.  But in the Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar template, many readers may not have a clue what the image is.  That is why it may be wise to search for an alternative image for the Irreligion sidebar.  --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need better image for Irreligion sidebar

message: There are two sidebar templates that are very similar:  Template:Atheism2 and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar.  See discussion of possible merger at Talk page  Template Talk:Atheism2   --Noleander (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in the evolution of these templates to a more concise form... we can merge irreligion and atheism, and take care of a great many other topics by having just two for all of them: :Template:Philosophy of religion and :Template:Religious philosophy. This approach has the advantage of attaching the main organization to an academic area. Take a look at :Template:Logic and its compartments for an idea of what I had in mind. Greg Bard 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg: thanks for the feedback.  Would you mind posting that suggestion over at   Template Talk:Atheism2  so the discussion is all in one place?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge two similar sidebar templates? 

message: I find this proposal to be completely out-of-line: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism.Greg Bard 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of nontheism 

message: Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Christ myth theory]] page name 

message: Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on in-text attribution 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Atheism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see any objections to those that have been included, although I would welcome any opinions about articles others might think deserve to be included. The articles marked with cleanup tags are Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, and Humanism. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: Recently, the Mormonism and violence and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk pages were modified to state that they are of Mid-importance to Wikiproject Atheism. I personally don't really see a direct connection; also, similar religious criticism pages, such as Criticism of the Catholic Church and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, are not (yet?) included in the project. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheism is not the anti-religion- in other words, it shouldn't be the counterpoint to a pro-religion viewpoint by a given religion. Including WikiProject Atheism makes less sense than including  or . tedder (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those articles should be included in the Atheism project.  The Atheism philosophy, narrowly construed, would not include it.  But the Atheism project is broader than atheism per se: the project includes many related topics, such as agnosticism and hostility towards religion.  Some of these included topics are contrary to, or mutually exclusive with, atheism. I'm not saying the atheism philosophy includes them, but the WP Atheism project does.  For instance, the Atheism project includes articles such as Agnosticism, God is not great and Criticism of Christianity.  Why?  Because WP projects need to be broad: otherwise many articles would not be in a project.   You may say "that is silly, agnosticism is not atheism" - but that can be mitigated by  setting the  "project importance" value to "low" for articles that are just tangentially related to the Atheism.  Finally, including the articles in the Atheism project is not suggesting that atheists embrace the attitude of all the articles: the project is simply a way of helping to manage articles.    Finally, note that the Atheism sidebar template Template:Atheism Sidebar   includes a large variety of topics outside atheism, including Criticism of religion ... certainly the Atheism project should include all the articles in its sidebar template.   --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think you should get some confirmation from other members of the WikiProject before you go mass-adding Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Judaism, and criticism of (religion X) to it. You're not even on the project's list of participants yet. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on the issue at hand (as you know:  any editor is free to improve WP without belonging to a special club :-)  We shouldn't confuse the Atheism project with the atheism article.   A WP project can, and should, include articles that are just incidentally related to the project's main theme, and that is what the "Low" project importance rating is for.   Here are some articles that have been within the Atheism project for a long time: Criticism of religion, Criticism of Christianity, Irreligion,  Buddhism , Agnosticism, Humanist Canada, Opium of the people, The Genius of Charles Darwin, World Pantheist Movement, Adevism, Pablo Picaso, Faith and rationality, Morality without religion, Infidel, Secularity.  You cannot be suggesting that we remove Criticism of Religion (or its content-fork subarticle  Criticism of Christianity) from the project, are you?      Many atheists, of course, have no negative attitudes towards religion; but many atheists (such as Christopher Hitchens and God is not great) do have negative  attitudes towards religion (which they often state rather forcefully).  I'd say nearly half (just guessing) of all notable atheists have criticized religions in a very significant way.   Indeed, many people became atheists precisely because of the attitudes and events described in the "Criticism of someReligion" articles.   In fact, criticism of religion is prominently mentioned in the atheism article in the section atheism#Dangers of religions.   But  if you feel strongly that the "Criticism of someReligion" articles are only remotely related to atheism, I have no objection to changing their rating from "Mid" to "Low" importance (except Criticism of religion, which should stay "High" importance, where it has been for a long time). --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion, for what it's worth. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful, encyclopedic information to our readers, not to generate clubs for editors to join. Broadly, I agree with tedder's view above. That said, the question of what should or should not be part of a project is of zero interest to our readers, even less interest than what categories a page is in. These are the kinds of things that Wikipedians argue about, with about as much usefulness as arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If a page is listed as part of a WikiProject, and that brings some more editors to work on it, all for the good. If it's in the sidebar template, and helps a reader locate another page, that's great. But, as has been happening recently in this talk, when editors post here hoping to canvass editors who are on a particular "side" in some religion/irreligion content dispute, that's toxic. You don't have to be Jewish to enjoy rye bread, and you don't have to be an atheist to edit pages in this project. Don't assume that everyone here has a particular belief or disbelief. And if anyone disagrees with me, I suggest that they be burned at the stake! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with much of what you've said except one thing:  you say that posting in the Atheism project to solicit input on RfCs or other disputes is "toxic" ... but that is assuming that the poster had a inappropriate motive.  We do not know what the poster's motives are, and it is bad faith to assume the poster is trying to recruit like-minded supporters.  In fact, the poster may simply be trying to get more input in a stale RfC.  Because canvassing individual editors is prohibited, the WP canvassing policy encourages editors to instead solicit input from projects.  For example, if you look above in this Talk page, we see user SlimVirgin making some innocuous RfC posts.  I think that is great:  RfCs are an early stage in dispute resolution, and notifying relevant projects is a good thing.   The Atheism project is certainly relevant to RfC-type disputes that relate to criticisms of religion.   Let's be candid:  the Atheism project has been rather dormant the past couple of years: over 75% of its articles are rated grade "C" or below.  Biting editors that venture into the project's Talk page will not make the project more active or useful.  --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, what I said was "toxic" was worded a bit differently than the way you summarized it. And I wasn't directing it at anyone in particular, more to everyone in general. Now, to the stake! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All I was trying to say is that it's a bad idea to go changing the scope of a WikiProject without consulting with people who claim to pertain to it. I'm not trying to bite, but three people (admittedly none that claim to be part of the project; though all you have to do is put your name on the list) have now expressed the opinion that these new articles do not belong to the scope of WikiProject Atheism. If you want to create a "Criticism of Religion" WikiProject, then I'm sure these articles would be perfectly acceptable in that scope. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I concur there there is a dividing line somewhere.  A good criterion for inclusion in the project (focusing on criticism articles) might be:   "If notable atheists have discussed the topic in a significant way in their writings, then it is suitable for the Atheism project".  Some articles that probably meet that criteria include:   Criticism of religion, Religious terrorism, Christianity and violence,  Criticism of Christianity, Islam and violence,  Judaism and violence, Criticism of Islam,  Criticism of the Bible.  In addition, the "Criticism of someReligion" articles are WP:Content forks of Criticism of religion, and so it is sensible to include them in the project also.  Note that the "Importance" rating could be set to "Low" to indicate that the relationship is not very strong.  If there are topics such as Criticism of Jainism or Criticism of Buddhism that have never been significant topics in atheistic writings, I concur that they should not be in the project.  --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting back to the original question of whether Criticism of Mormonism should be included (possibly with "Low" importance) in this project, I note that God is not great by C. Hitchens mentions  "Joseph Smith" six times, and "Mormons"  five times.  Of course, all the references are critical.  Also, R. Dawkins in  The God Delusion mentions J. S. critically.   I'm not saying this is overwhelming (although I have not really tried to look for additional sources) but I think these sources do justify inclusion with "low" importance.  --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not think that articles pertaining to criticism of individual religious systems should be included in the "atheism" categories or project. In general, there are any number of ways to criticize any religious group: the article on Criticism of the Catholic Church, for instance, can not only be counted as relating to atheism, but also to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Judaism, Thelema, Scientology, Falun Gong, neopaganism, the Orthodox Churches, the Reformation churches, and the Restorationist churches, and every other separate religion out there. The atheism banner, in all honesty, is no more relevant to that article than any of the banners of the other religion projects would be, and placing the atheism banner on those articles would be likely to lead to the possibility of atheistic material being possibly overstressed in that article. The banners are meant to be placed only on articles which are clearly and directly relevant to the given project, and there is no good reason to believe that atheism is more important to those articles than any of the other extant religious movements or religion projects. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of (religion Z)" pertains to this wikiproject? 

message: I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of :Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject cleanup listing 

message: Criticism of Islam, with a current "Atheism" banner on it, is not developing very well and is poorly written IMO compared to other "Criticism" articles. It needs help. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Islam 

message: There's an RfC here on whether to include Jesus myth theory on the template. Another editor posted the RfC to the Christianity wikiproject,  so I'm posting it here for balance. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at [[Template talk:Jesus]] 

message: Do we have something like that? I think this Project would be improved if we had something like that, which we could use to focus on specific articles. --Havermayer (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month? 

message: The Ethical Culture movement entry needs serious cleanup, especially with attention to using reliable secondary and tertiary sources.  The entry is currently at AfD.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical Culture.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical Culture movement 

message: A new editor recently created a page on Al Stefanelli.  Outside of the obvious best selling authors I'm not sure which Atheist activists are notable today.  Can someone with some knowledge of this hop on over to the page and take a look?  If Stafanelli is notable enough to have an entry the current entry will need a lot of work.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Stefanelli 

message: I have submitted an AfD on the entry. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Stefanelli.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.
Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Secularism]] 

message: I just created the Darrel Ray page. Not sure if the Article Alerts bot will catch it, so I thought I'd post here. Any help in fleshing out the page is welcome! -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, I'm surprised this project doesn't have a User:AlexNewArtBot task. I can help, since I just finished recoding it. tedder (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Darrel Ray]] - help flesh out the page 

message: Aha. This seems to be coming out of the following discussions, some related to Keepscases's ongoing criticism of the Atheism userboxes: Keepscases userpage, ANI, Drmies RFA.
Can we at least centralize the WP:DRAMA and/or former horse-beating? It's taking place in at least four locations now, probably more. tedder (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tedder, please let us focus on the user boxes, which is the issue relevant to this talk page.   Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, here's my part of the discussion: Keep them all. There's nothing in them for anyone to be offended at who's not looking for an excuse to be offended. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussions

message: IMO all the userboxes should go.  This is a Wikiproject focused on information about atheism and not a social group for atheists.  Members of the wikiproject may or may not be atheists themselves.  May I ask what userboxes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia content, but with personal self-expression have to do with a Wikiproject in the first place?  The only user box that is worth retaining is the ones that say someone is a member of the Wikiproject (but not the one with the pink unicorn which again promotes self-expression of personal beliefs and not the subject matter under the purview of the project.)  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I do not mean "delete" them from Wikipedia, but simply, "remove" them from this Wikiproject.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at other Wikiprojects, none of which promote personal group identifications or personal beliefs, I was BOLD and took all the "related" userboxes out.  I'd like to remove the pink unicorn as well, but think there needs to be more discussion first.  The pink unicorn is not a particularly common symbol of atheism, and indeed it refers to a negative view of religious belief as opposed to a positive view of atheism.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm going to be... umm, umm, agnostic... as to whether this was a good move or not, but I suppose a case can be made that there isn't absolutely a need for user boxes to be listed on a WikiProject page at all. I note that some of the religion WikiProjects do not display user boxes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't userboxes per se, but userboxes that say, "I believe such and such."  When I looked through some other Wikiprojects, including religious ones, I did not find any of those.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some mathematicians have user-boxes that state "I believe in the axiom of choice" or "Keep your large cardinal numbers to yourself", but they don't appear on the WikiProject Mathematics page. Smiling,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and indeed that's the point. It doesn't look like any of these will be added back, so at least that is settled.Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually added a few uncontroversial ones back. Users are encouraged to disclose potential COI, and the only way most people do this is through userboxes. COI aren't going to be an issue with Wikiproject Math or Wikiproject Trains, but this is a much more polarizing topic. Swarm X 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Swarm, WP:COI is not simply about one's personal beliefs or group affiliations.  If you are an atheist you don't necessarily have a COI in editing this topic.  You might have a bias, but then again so might someone who is religious.  Indeed, a Christian is just as likely to have a bias on this topic as an atheist, so by this logic we should link to various religious user boxes too, in order to encourage people to label themselves in case they are biased?  You see how that is untenable?  Besides that the Wikiproject page isn't here for that purpose anyway.  Take a look at other Wikiprojects, specifically the ones for different religions.  They do not have these kinds of user boxes.  I don't want to edit war but these boxes that have to do with individual beliefs or affiliations really need to go.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly encourage anyone who's a member of a specific political or religious Wikiproject to disclose whether they're actually a member of that particular group. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist in Wikiproject atheism, for example, but we all have biases. And, while it would be excessive to include userboxes for every related viewpoint on the Wikiproject page, it would make perfect sense for a few directly related userboxes to be featured on a Wikiproject page. In fact, that you couldn't find any others doesn't mean it should be removed from this page, it should be the other way around! Swarm X 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, I tend to think editors should do what they want to do, so if they want to do as Swarm suggests, whatever. But as noted below, I've deleted them. In hopes of satisfying both concerns (lotsa luck), I replaced them with a link to the collection of all such boxen, so that way anyone who wants to can select from the full menu, and anyone who feels unwelcome at this WikiProject will, I hope, feel less so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove all userboxes ''except'' those specifically related to the Wikiproject

message: Wikiproject Atheism appears to be the only Wikiproject that actively promotes userboxes that refer to a specific belief system or group identity.  These "Related userboxes," found on the main page, are not about atheism as a subject matter, but atheism as a personal identity. IMO this promotes an atmosphere that excludes people who are not atheists from the project.  IMO, Wikiprojects are not social clubs for people of certain groups, but projects that organize material on subject matters, and should not promote themselves as if outsiders are less welcome.  Regulars at the project, who are themselves atheists I imagine, have reverted my efforts to remove these infoboxes.  I would like to seek wider input on the matter from the rest of the community.Griswaldo (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: This RfC was created when the Wikiproject page was in another state and refers to userboxes that have since been deleted.  To understand the question correctly please refer to the former state of the page.  See here.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Only official user-boxes should appear on the Project's main-page, which can have a link to a secondary page of user-boxes of interest to WP users interested in the topic of atheism. The current official user-box (2) of the pink unicorn is traditionally satiric-atheistic, and thus has some conflict with this group's welcome to non-atheists. (I do not claim that this conflict is the greatest in human history!) I have written before, explaining my arguments, so here I have only restated my position.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kiefer- can you link to a policy or guideline that says "official userboxes only"? tedder (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. WP operates by discussion. I have never stated that somebody has broken policy, only that this project should consider whether the user-boxes are consistent with its welcoming non-atheists. (I agree that some now removed userboxes are uncivil, and am glad that the worst offender was removed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I've deleted replaced them, and I hope that makes the issue moot. And sorry if my comment above came on too strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries about the tone.  The thing is that I did delete them and was hoping that we could just move on.  But I was reverted first partially by Swarm and further by Dandv.  I raised the issue above but very few people responded and those who did (like Swarm) appear to be diametrically opposed to my rationale for deleting them.  That's why I started an RFC, to get broader input.  I also hope the issue is moot and that you are not reverted as I was. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the inclusion of a link to off-project userboxes, and I am glad that the project page no longer has distracting or off-putting userboxes. (Phrasing it as a "deletion" of content should be avoided, because the page has a link.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected, and thanks. Perhaps if there are no objections to what I did, after a day or so we might be able to end the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Swarm please remain civil.  When you and Dan reverted me, in keeping with WP:BRD I did not revert back but started a discussion.  Very few participated in that discussion.  Indeed it was pretty much only you.  Because of that I tried to get more input from the community. I'm not sure where all the anger is coming from simply because I asked for wider input.  As a point of fact, what Tryptofish has done is exactly what I did, with the addition of a link to all the religion userboxes.  Of course I think that's an even better solution. As another point of fact Tryptofish did this after I started the RFC, and since my original deletion didn't stick I've been waiting to make sure this does before closing the RFC.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, Swarm, I (hopefully!!) "resolved" it only after the RfC was opened, so that really isn't Griswaldo's fault. Admittedly, it isn't easy to follow the time line, so I trust this was just a misunderstanding. I'd look favorably on closing the RfC now, since we don't seem to have anyone objecting to the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an immensely minor issue. You were in favor of removing all the userboxes, I was in favor of removing all but a few. Was that our earth-shattering disagreement that needed dispute resolution? Tryptofish removed them all, but linked to the others, which, to me, seems like a perfectly reasonable middle ground that I'm fully in support of. Okay, that middle ground was reached after you opened an RfC, and I apologize if my last comment was counterproductive, but, since you agree that the current version is acceptable, can we close this RfC? We don't need anyone else to agree; we're all adults here (and if we're not, we should still act like it), and we're perfectly within our rights to agree on something without a community dramafest discussion. Swarm X 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no "dramafest."  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism project userboxes - do they exclude certain groups? 

message: Hi there. Just a note to let you know that the templates  Template:Atheism and Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar for your wikiproject do not meet the guidelines for contrast per WP:COLOR as they fail the test at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html. Color blind and sight impaired people will not be able to read them readily. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has commented on this problem, I have gone ahead and modified the templates to meet the accessibility guidelines. Cheers, --Diannaa (Talk) 23:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dianaa. They look fine. As you can see from the talk later, some other issues came up and took a lot of attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for Footer navigation template etc do not meet color guidelines 

message: Militant atheism needs some attention it seems to contain a lot of synth. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh there's more wrong with it than just that. It violates WP:NOTDICT and WP:NPOV. It is a WP:COATRACK built around an anti-atheist slur with a very broad meaning. It is currently followed by TWELVE religious WikiProjects but not WikiProject: Atheism. Obhave (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to this project, for what that's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Militant_atheism]] 

message: Is Dennis Markuze notable enough for us to start an article on him? If so, I can see potential BLP difficulties. (For people unfamiliar with his alleged activities, see this blog post by PZ Myers and this Toronto Sun story.) What do people think?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who he is, but I'm puzzled by why you would post the question here. Does he have something to do with this project? There's nothing in those two links you provided that would indicate passing WP:BIO, and plenty to indicate, as you say, BLP problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re posting the question: I couldn't find anywhere else to post it. I'm more than happy to move it to somewhere more appropriate if you/someone can suggest somewhere better. Re notability: it's the alleged activities that I think might be notable - the posting of huge numbers of threatening and incomprehensible messages on the forums, Twitter feeds, blogs etc. belonging to various prominent atheists.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so the subject is someone who directs these comments to prominent atheists. I didn't know that. You would need secondary sources showing the person is notable, per WP:BIO. I'm not seeing that here. An alternative approach might be an article about the event, rather than about the person, if there is sourcing for a campaign of harassment. Or, you might consider just adding a section about it to Discrimination against atheists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Toronto Sun story looks like a start towards establishing notability, but I think it would take a few more like it to clearly establish it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennis Markuze 

message: I can't save any text on that page, could anybody please check? Without talkpage the article will develop much slower.
87.178.101.241 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. (Someone had put code for non-displaying text, without closing it, at the top.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Wendy Wright (activist)]] 

message: Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Judaism]] 

message: There is an ongoing request for comment at Militant atheism that is relevant to this wikiproject. Please see Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant RfC 

message: A relatively inexperienced editor has removed WP Atheism's banner from God of the gaps.  I'm sure it was done in good faith, and I have no idea whether this group wants to support this article.  It's entirely up to you, of course, so I thought I'd alert you to the change and let you decide what to do.  (Not watching this page)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the template. No big deal, but presence of the template does no harm. (By the way, I watchlist this talk page, but I'm not officially a project member.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope? 

message: Critical thinking is an important subject in atheism, I mis it in a lot of summaries and some articles ... Is there a reason? Or was it forgotten because it was "too obvious"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.236.167 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical thinking 

message: Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Atheism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in atheism - as leaders, theorists, or women who are atheist themselves. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWomen's History Month 

message: * Wikipedia:Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
* Transitional fossil
It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transitional Fossil peer-review 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Bang#RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang.  Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang 

message: I'm not a member of WikiProject Atheism but I'd like you all to know of the incorrect grammar presently found in hundreds of biographies of atheists, namely "None (Atheist)" [sic] appearing in the subsection mentioning their (ir)religion. "None", of course, is to be capitalised as it is at beginning of its own sentence and subsection; however, "atheist" isn't a proper noun and therefore only is to be capitalised at the beginning of its own sentence—brackets aren't sentences. The word "Atheist" in the middle of a sentence is incorrect in the English language, as Wiktionary shows. It'd be great if the next article of an atheist you see with this mistake you'd be able to do that minor edit. Thanks. JaumeBG (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect capitalisation of "atheist" in biographies 

message: I've taken some online lists of secular feminists, merged them, and fixed various typos and name variants with redirects: see User:The Anome/List of secular feminists. Although most of the people on the list have articles, some are missing. Would anyone be interested in creating articles for those that fell through the gaps? -- The Anome (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular feminists 

message: Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#Bertrand_Russell it is being argued that Bertrand Russell isn't an atheist because he is an agnostic atheist. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List membership being debated 

message: There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed MOS for Religion 

message: Will some admin please see Talk:List_of_atheist,_agnostic,_and_nontheist_authors.#Admin_needed_to_return_to_original_name about an article rename? --Noleander (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: can some admin rename:    List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology -> the original title List of atheists in science and technology.  --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm trying to centralize the discussion here: Talk:List_of_atheists_and_agnostics_in_science_and_technology#Good_move.3F_rename_from_.22list_of_atheists.22_to_.22list_of_atheists_and_agnostics.22.  Please post any comments there, not here. --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin needed to rename article 

message: There is currently a title discussion on this article: Existence of God(s). You are welcome to join the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Pass a Method talk 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence of God 

message: Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to [[WP:NOT]] 

message: A little discussion of the article lede is occurring and could use input: Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation#Is_FFRF_an_atheist_group.3F tedder (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede of FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) 

message: There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality about "Position on homosexuality" section. All editors are welcomed to share their opinion on the subject.
Note: per Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, the following WikiProjects are informed about this RFC because they have project banners on that talk page: WikiProject Scouting, WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject LGBT studies.
--В и к и T  19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#RFC:Position_on_homosexuality]] 

message: What are your thoughts on Secularism in Israel, freethinkers? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifies for the project? 

message: Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periyar E. V. Ramasamy 

message: Any editors are welcome to contribute to the User:Pass a Method/Christian POV on Wikipedia piece. Pass a Method talk 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian POV on wikipedia 

message: :Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9#Category:Metatheory_of_religion
This category has been proposed for deletion, and the result will be that Atheism will be categorized under Religion, rather than Philosophy. The category was created to make a distinction between theories that govern the formation of religious beliefs which are limited by scholarly, academic, empirical, skeptical philosophical methodology and reason; and religious belief. Please look into this matter.Greg Bard (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of [[:Category:Metatheory of religion|Metatheories of religion]] 

message: I demoted God is dead from B- to C-class for the reasons outlined in Talk:God is dead#This article needs re-factoring or re-writing.  I lack the expertise to do the article justice, so I'm calling editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to quickly improve the article at least to B-class.
In recognition of the Feb 28, 2012 death of William Hamilton (theologian), I'm further challenging both WikiProjects to work to get this to Good Article status if possible. Please follow up on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please improve God is dead 

message: There is an article about religious violence but there isn't an article about anti-religious violence. Why is this? I am sure athiests have used violence against Christanity. As an atheist myself, I can you I have become more aggressive against religion over time. Look at all of the problems religion has caused worldwide. It justifies racism, it justifies discrimination, it justifies sexism, it justifies intolerance, it justifies slavery, it justifies child abuse, it justifies rape, it justifies murder, it devalues reason, it devalues truth, it devalues humanity, it contradicts scientifically proven facts, it restricts free thought, it restricts freedom of choice, it restricts scientific progress, it restricts medical progress, it restricts social progress, it represses sexuality, it restricts sexual freedom, it encourages false information, it teaches behaviour through authority by means of reward and punishment, it steals time, it steals money, it steals energy, it steals resources, it steals knowledge, it steals lives, it defines human nature, it creates psychological problems, it creates resent, it creates shame, it creates guilt, it creates fear, it creates stress, it creates violence, it creates terrorism, it creates wars, it destroys families, it destroys communities and it destroys countries. When realizing how much problems religion causes, it is not uncommon for people to be against it. 
One need only to look at the oppression against Christians by the atheist Chinese government; and, not to single out China, many nations with atheistic governments or atheist rulers have committed acts of oppression and violence against Christians. But in the United States and throughout the world, Christians are victims of atheist violence and it is an ongoing conflict. Athiests have also expressed violence against Christianity on websites. In the "first world" nations, where one would think bigotry and anti-religious violence would be declining, people see more and more anti-religious violence. Websites, billboards, full-page ads in newspapers, the formation of atheist groups to perform violence against religion, etc all point to the rise in violence by atheists against Christians. It seems reasonable to have an article about anti-religions violence. Volcanoguy 13:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-religious violence" needs an article 

message: The term "nones" is gaining traction as a way to describe non-believers lately. I have not seen such on wikipedia though. Mostly it still uses "irreligius" Pass a Method talk 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nones 

message: The article Yahweh, as I'm sure is true of many religious articles, has pretty frequent censorship attempts.  My partner, and to a lesser degree, I, have been keeping an eye on this article for a few years and have to deal with this on a pretty regular basis.  I'm wondering if there is a place, perhaps here, perhaps elsewhere, where we can request that others eager for this page to remain encyclopaedic and neutral in tone join in and look out for this article a little; perhaps join the debate on the talk page?  Currently a total rewrite is being discussed that would, it seems, turn it into a theological document.  Apologies if this is not a good place for this request.  Nihola (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to ask for others to keep an eye on Yahweh? 

message: The lead says "The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, while religiosity is declining." Then a bit further down an editor (who has been arguing that atheism is decreasing) added last night "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica in mid-2010 the world atheist population was 137,564,000 or 2.0% of the world population. The average annual % change from 2000 to 2010 globally was −0.17." This is an impossibly accurate figure, but the editor seems determined to minimise the number of atheists.
This is contradicted by other sources and I've added some on the talk page. Anyone want to take a look at the article as a whole and try to make more sense of it? Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Demographics of atheism]] 

message: Soviet_anti-religious_legislation needs a large amount of work to get it up to standard. It's essentially a list and quotes with interlinks in them, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet anti-religious legislation 

message: On the second of August we are running an editathon in partnership with Conway hall, they have archives of various freethought movements from the UK. Details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism/Conway hall editathon, even if you can't attend in person or via skype, this is an opportunity to get some queries pursued in their archives. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conway Hall editathon 

message: There is a request posted at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for the merger of Atheism in Indonesian law into Irreligion in Indonesia.  Your input welcome at Talk:Irreligion in Indonesia#Merger proposal. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Criticism of Jainism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Jainism  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Rahul (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Criticism of Jainism]] for deletion 

message: I think Irreligion in Europe should be split and gain its own article thoughts.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irreligion in Europe 

message: I think Irreligion in Japan should be split and gain its own article thoughts.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irreligion in Japan 

message: I've been trying to clean it up. Before it read like a press release and had lots of fluff, references to his own articles, unreliable sources, etc. It still needs trimming and expanding some areas. More help is needed. If anyone can have a look at it please. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Justin Trottier]] article 

message: I just wanted to throw this out there. It seems to me that an actual apagnostic would not even create an article on the subject. Why would they if they don't care? I label my wife as an apagnostic, whereas I'm firmly athiest. I have a strong opinion on the subject of theism one way, she could care less. It is not important to her. It's not part of her daily life nor thought. In fact, she is obviously disinterested anytime I try to discuss my thoughts on religion to her. I gave her the label of apagnostic several years ago while we were still dating. She didn't have a label for herself and still doesn't because she just doesn't care. I think that is the idea behind apagnosticism. A Wikipedia article on the subject, in my opinion, would be very short. It would say something like, "An apagnostic is someone who doesn't adhere to any religious beliefs and doesn't care."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.227.67 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apagnostic doesn't care 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: I've added photos of the American Atheists bench in Starke, Florida to American Atheists and Bradford County, Florida.  It would be good if someone who knows more about the case puts up some discussion of it, especially on the Bradford County, Florida page.  Thank you.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Atheists bench in Starke, Florida 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Matt Dillahunty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dillahunty (3rd nomination)  until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Matt Dillahunty]] for deletion 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam Harris (author) to be moved to Sam Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sam Harris (author)]] listed at Requested moves

message: The :Category:Christian fiction and allegory is getting really WP:COATRACKy. Could people please go through and weed out what doesn't belong? I already removed :Category:The Matrix (franchise) from it, but it's late here and I need to go to sleep. Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Christian fiction and allegory]] getting really coatracky 

message: Due to the recent attacks on Bangladeshi secular bloggers, the article Irreligion in Bangladesh has attracted several new edits, including some vandalism. Consider improving it or at least adding to your watchlist. -Kenfyre (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks on Bangladeshi bloggers 

message: We should definitely have an article on Evangelical atheism, even if it's only to describe the use of the term as a boo-word by religious apologists. It might be an idea to merge it to antitheism as a specific section in that article, but a previous merge to antitheism, followed by extensive editing, seems to have ended up removing all mention of it from Wikipedia. I've restored the article from an old version, but it's still really poor. Can anyone please help improve it? -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evangelical atheism]] 

message: For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. Keahapana (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth 

message: Are there equivalent religious categories? Does it matter that it was made by a Christian Wikipedia user? Asking because I don't really get involved behind the scenes so I have no idea. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Persecution by atheists 

message: I'm a bit surprised that this is not yet even a candidate for inclusion in our "In the News" section on the Main Page. Perhaps I'd create a candidate entry myself, except that: 
:- I'm semi-retired
:- I describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist (I know some say an agnostic is a soft or weak atheist, but I don't do so as I have no wish to confuse or mislead my listeners)
:- I have somewhat confused views about blasphemy laws (as anybody who reads my discussion of the matter on my user page may notice)
:- and I'm staying away from In The News candidates after having had a few unpleasant experiences there in the past which I have no wish to repeat. 
But surely there are a few atheists here who might wish to get the ball rolling (unless perhaps they have all tried and failed to get similar candidates through in the past, perhaps for lack of the necessary consensus to post). Of course consensus may be hard to achieve. 
And some may feel it may be a little bit too dangerous: My user page also discusses some possible dangers of editing Wikipedia, although I forget why I didn't explicitly mention the possible dangers of 'offending Islam' while editing Wikipedia. But I may have been worried about the (perhaps remote) possibility of leading some blasphemy-hunter to a 'Wiki-blasphemer'. At any rate those dangers were very much in my mind at the time, as I had recently seen a Muslim Wikipedian (perhaps entirely innocently) seeking the support of a non-Muslim Wikipedian to confirm that what another non-Muslim Wikipedian said about Islam on an Islam-related topic's Talk Page was 'disrespectful' (or some similar term). Perhaps fortunately his question got an evasive reply, though someone else might easily have unthinkingly agreed that it was disrespectful. Or maybe I'm just a bit too paranoid. Then again poor Mr Hattar seemingly wasn't paranoid enough, and the same can seemingly be said for quite a lot of dead critics of Islam.
Anyway, best of luck to anybody who tries. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder of atheist [[Nahed Hattar]] when charged with blasphemy 

message: Hello colleagues,
User:Jobas has removed the categorisation 'atheist' of a number of biographies that do not state explicitly that the person is/was an atheist. We need reliable sources to establish these people's atheism. I've already provided evidence for a couple of them, could you please help me? See Special:Contributions/Jobas. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. Hope my edit wasn't a controversial. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the supject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic.--Jobas (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's fine, you did the right thing. :) These claims need to be verified, even though that may take some effort. We know that some users love to assign a certain (ir)religious identity to people, Neil deGrasse Tyson being a notorious example of someone who has stressed he's an agnostic, not an atheist, but is constantly claimed as an atheist. So it's good to have a reliable source for such a claim. I've already had trouble with a few of the ones you question, e.g. I couldn't find a source for actor Daniel Craig. He only went as far as to say that the James Bond character he played seems like an atheist, and the film The Golden Compass  in which he starred was accused of 'promoting atheism to kids'. Some unreliable website claims he's not religious but never called himself an atheist, another that he's an agnostic, without sources. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  I think that it's fine to remove a category from a biographical page when there is no source provided for that category. If the category actually does apply, it can be added back with sourcing. However, if there are a large number of pages where the category really applies and just needs sourcing, it can be helpful instead to notify an interested WikiProject and allow interested editors to make the corrections. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad for your understanding :), I do agree as well, these claims need to be verified inside the artilce, Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheists to be verified