Difference between revisions of "Talk:Longest list of atheist URLs ever!"

From Atheism United
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Notability discussion)
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
On even further review, the guy states on his [http://iamskeptic.com/about/ about page] that he's an [[atheist]], and his [http://iamskeptic.com/16/what-is-an-agnostic/ discussion] of [[agnosticism]] is legit. He [http://iamskeptic.com/32/agnostic-atheist/ calls himself] and [[agnostic atheist]], and defends it cogently.
 
On even further review, the guy states on his [http://iamskeptic.com/about/ about page] that he's an [[atheist]], and his [http://iamskeptic.com/16/what-is-an-agnostic/ discussion] of [[agnosticism]] is legit. He [http://iamskeptic.com/32/agnostic-atheist/ calls himself] and [[agnostic atheist]], and defends it cogently.
 +
 +
LOL, it's so funny that you thought my blog was a homeopathy sham site. I'll have to be more careful to not give the quacks or religious nuts such a big screenshot next time!
  
 
I would vote that it is fair, under the concept of [[Atheism United]], to include his blog in the list, since at least two of the posts were about [[atheism]], his about page mentions his [[atheism]], he's got a blog category of [[Religion]], he has links to the [[Out Campaign]], etc. I think he's legitimately part of our vision. I'll post a comment on his [[blog]] about this confusion. He might be amused. :-) [[Interrobang|&#8253;]] [[User:Wonderist|Wonderist]] <small>''([[User_talk:Wonderist|talk]])''</small> 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 
I would vote that it is fair, under the concept of [[Atheism United]], to include his blog in the list, since at least two of the posts were about [[atheism]], his about page mentions his [[atheism]], he's got a blog category of [[Religion]], he has links to the [[Out Campaign]], etc. I think he's legitimately part of our vision. I'll post a comment on his [[blog]] about this confusion. He might be amused. :-) [[Interrobang|&#8253;]] [[User:Wonderist|Wonderist]] <small>''([[User_talk:Wonderist|talk]])''</small> 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:30, 5 November 2011

Notability discussion

This site seems like a site that has created a lot of content for atheism but cluttered with google page ranking attempts to increase medicine companies. Homeopathic no less... http://iamskeptic.com/ I propose it's not worthy. Anyone agree? Keep in mind if you link to spam it makes your site power go down, and hinders us from increasing the google worth of all atheists. --Brian 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think all links on this particular page should be specifically atheism-related, as in they specifically talk about or endorse an atheistic worldview. I've added a more general Category:Resource category for useful resources not specifically atheism-related. Thanks to ex-minister for the suggestion.

Unless 'iamskeptic' is specifically pro-atheism, I think they should belong on a separate page. Perhaps they can have a page which has Category:Resource and Category:Skeptic. That should allow them to participate here legitimately without diluting the purpose of this particular atheist URL list. Wonderist (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

<after checking the link> Totally unrelated crap. I recommend deleting it and checking out whoever added it (in the page history, i.e. the View history link on the 'Longest list...' page). I put a nowiki tag around the link above, so it won't actually render the URL. Looks like spam to me. Wonderist (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. That first post on the I Am Skeptic! site is unintentionally deceptive. It's actually a screenshot of a homeopathy site, but because the screenshot takes up the whole beginning of the post, and looks like a blog post itself, it makes the entire I Am Skeptic! site look like a homeopathy site pretending to be 'skeptic'. I amend my previous opinion that it is spam. I read the whole post. The guy's a skeptic. Wonderist (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On even further review, the guy states on his about page that he's an atheist, and his discussion of agnosticism is legit. He calls himself and agnostic atheist, and defends it cogently.

LOL, it's so funny that you thought my blog was a homeopathy sham site. I'll have to be more careful to not give the quacks or religious nuts such a big screenshot next time!

I would vote that it is fair, under the concept of Atheism United, to include his blog in the list, since at least two of the posts were about atheism, his about page mentions his atheism, he's got a blog category of Religion, he has links to the Out Campaign, etc. I think he's legitimately part of our vision. I'll post a comment on his blog about this confusion. He might be amused. :-) Wonderist (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)