"William Lane Craig" article - logical fallacy
I saw you reverted my change to the Craig article. The argument that "looks like a logical fallacy" to you is in fact a valid application of modus tollens or "denying the consequent", not an application of the (fallacious) inference pattern affirming the consequent.
I'm not going to revert it or reply again about this. Leave the article in whatever state you like. (Sorry if it's bad form to bring this up here, I'm not familiar with wiki etiquette.)— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
Please, see 
Moderator election results
- Congratulations! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations to the winners
@Bongolian,@CheeseburgerFace,@Christopher,@CowHouse,@DiamondDisc1 and @LeftyGreenMario, congratulations to you all! The RationalWiki users voted wisely and I know you'll all do what's best for us. Anyway, as a member of the Board of Trustees, I'm one of the genuine shadowy powers that really controls this wiki. Spud (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! Hey you got to be replacement, just don't make any assassination plans, okay? :) ;)-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! CowHouse (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your decision to move the Strieber page. The reasons you've given aren't sound. The article was rewritten from the ground up. It doesn't resemble except in the broadest way the WP article that a few months back I made the mistake of experimenting upon. Sections like the one on the Whitman shooting and Strieber's M.O. are completely new and make up roughly half the text.
Perhaps you haven't looked at new article too closely. While there's overlap in topics discussed in the WP article, there's not enough similarity to merit a plagiarism charge. I think this can all be put down to the perception created - by me as a newbie - sandboxing the WP article to play with. Now since then, this article seems tarred with the plagiarism brush no matter what. Hochichi667 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I moved it because the majority consensus here was that the article shouldn't be deleted but isn't ready for main space. Plagiarism has nothing to do with it. You have been told that the article needs to be better sourced. That seems to be the main problem. Spud (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't a lot more time to spend on this, but it still seems as if you haven't looked at the article recently. The consensus you cite was a few weeks back. Since that time I basically rewrote the article from the ground up and added sources. It's comparable to the Linda Moulton Howe entry when it comes to sourcing. Hochichi667 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)