Oldstone James (talk | contribs) |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) Warning: Three-revert rule on Creationism. (TW) |
||
Line 236: | Line 236: | ||
::Thx, will do. FWIW, a Google search for “fewer commas” shows that is the trend. One humorous cmt from [https://killzoneblog.com/2014/01/where-have-all-commas-gone.html that search]: “As a fellow over-inserter of commas, I sympathize! If I pause, I insert, well, you know. A comma! 🙂” (And I’m a recovering commaholic.) [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
::Thx, will do. FWIW, a Google search for “fewer commas” shows that is the trend. One humorous cmt from [https://killzoneblog.com/2014/01/where-have-all-commas-gone.html that search]: “As a fellow over-inserter of commas, I sympathize! If I pause, I insert, well, you know. A comma! 🙂” (And I’m a recovering commaholic.) [[User:Humanengr|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr|talk]]) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::{{reply|Humanengr}} Oh, no! It started off so well... The comma, unfortunately, is not a representation of a pause in speech - and you can't like to insert it or hate to insert it: in most cases, if it should be there, you should put it, and if it shouldn't, you shouldn't put it. In this particular example, there was only one grammatically correct option: the one I used; all other ways of punctuation it would be wrong. But it's good to know that you have respect for commas! Because a lot of people seem to just audaciously ignore them, and their sentences become impossible to read :)[[User:Oldstone James|<span style="color:white;background:#21E907"><sup>O</sup></span><span style="color:grey;background:#21E907">l</span><span style="color:#fff;background:#21E907"><sup>J</sup></span><span style="color:grey;background:#21E907">a</span>]] 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
:::{{reply|Humanengr}} Oh, no! It started off so well... The comma, unfortunately, is not a representation of a pause in speech - and you can't like to insert it or hate to insert it: in most cases, if it should be there, you should put it, and if it shouldn't, you shouldn't put it. In this particular example, there was only one grammatically correct option: the one I used; all other ways of punctuation it would be wrong. But it's good to know that you have respect for commas! Because a lot of people seem to just audaciously ignore them, and their sentences become impossible to read :)[[User:Oldstone James|<span style="color:white;background:#21E907"><sup>O</sup></span><span style="color:grey;background:#21E907">l</span><span style="color:#fff;background:#21E907"><sup>J</sup></span><span style="color:grey;background:#21E907">a</span>]] 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
== November 2017 == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Creationism]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:20, 5 November 2017
March 2015
Hello, I'm Qed237. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:2014–15 Premier League table because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See this diff QED237 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Editathon and Meetup invitations
March 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
re: PL results by round
Hi,
First of all I will answer your question. There is no reason for an article for results by round and I can not imagine it would pass WP:GNG (general noatbility guidelines). Other things than the consensus would probably have such article deleted.
The issue here is that there are no clear rounds in England. Matches gets moved around all the time due to League Cup, FA Cup and a history of postponed matches because of snow and other issues. As there are no rounds often teams have not played same amount of matches and sometimes the difference is 3-4 matches or more. That is why MATCHDAY is used instead of rounds.
Matchday is "the position at the end of the day the team played". So if a team plays on saturday, we use the position at saturday evening on the team individual article, if they play sunday we use position after sunday.
Also the Statto source we found lists all positions for the teams based on matchday. The source you tried adding are WP:OR (original research), because you have to look for yourself and change the date manually to see position after every match. No reason for that when we already have a source for matchday.
I think I got it all, if you have more questions feel free to ask. QED237 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, again. I understand your interest in helping but perhaps next time you could ask before making big edits and create things? You have been editing "high level" articles with many readers and editors and if something is not on the article there is probably a very good reason. You can always ask on article talkpage for example "why are there no bracket?" and you could have gotten an answer and not have your work being removed, as I know you have probably put some work and time in to it. In the case of bracket it tells reader we know who will meet in the future, but we dont know that, so it can not be added until last draw has been made, which is why it is hidden in a comment. QED237 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK Then. Oldstone James (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket
Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Scottish Championship Table on Queen of the South's season page 2014-15
This is only showing from Hibernian in 2nd place to Raith in 6th place since your edit? Could you post up the full league table please? Rusty1111 : Talk 14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is the way a team's performance is presented on Wikipedia articles. E.g. look here or here. Oldstone James (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Chelsea report
Yes, I will write a report for the Chelsea game, I'll do it shortly. Andre666 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) OlJa 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
your edit on Google today
Hey, Oldstone James, if you could be so kind, can you toss in a small edit summary when you edit? that would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. plus it's a simple form of WP:netiquette /paying respect to others.... --Wuerzele (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair use policy
Images used under a claim of fair use are not permitted anywhere other than articles for any reason. Please see WP:NFCC#9. Please notice how File:FC Southampton.svg is not licensed - it is a copyrighted logo. It can be used only in articles and then only where its use has a specific rationale explaining why it is permitted. --B (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014–15 Southampton F.C. season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: The main priority in Wikipedia is reliability, and, by not following source listed as reference, reliability is not kept.
- P.S. Btw, if ur doing that whole thing because of that edit I made about Arsenal in the 2014-15 Premier League article (Arsenal r getting relegated anyways cos they're shit), I was actually joking, I actually like Arsenal OlJa 10:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh that! Sorry for that, my bad. OlJa 10:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb cf
Template:Fb cf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb cf t
Template:Fb cf t has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Football club form
Template:Football club form has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Template:2014–15 Premier League table, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Sandboxes and testcases
Hi,
I have seen your recent edits and feel I have to explain a few things.
Sandboxes are for editing and testcases are to see if it works, you should not edit a template in testcases.
If you have a existing template you want to modify, then you can create a sandbox for that template, copy and paste content from main template and then test edit in the sandbox. After that you can compare the current "real" template with your version in the sandbox on a "testcases" page. As a example the template I created Template:Livescores editnotice was tested for some changes at Template:Livescores editnotice/sandbox and then the result was compared at Template:Livescores editnotice/testcases before being rolled out for use.
You should not create subpages of template if the template should not exist (all pages without parents should be speedy deleted) and you should not add your test to sandbox or testcase of another template.
If you want to try new templates it is best to use own personal sandboxes. For example when I created templates I used User:Qed237/sandbox2 for the implementation and I called and tested how they looked at User:Qed237/sandbox.
I will give you some time to blank and ask pages that should not exist to be deleted on your own, otherwise I will clear up and your work risk being lost.
If you have any questions I will try and help. QED237 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Ewofjkwejfoie/testcases
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Template:Ewofjkwejfoie/testcases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. QED237 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to experiment with template code then please use a sandbox; do not use mainspace for your tests. GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Copa America
Hi, you have totally mised the point. The Y is for when teams can only reach "blue" and MAY qualify. Now that it is sure that third means qualifying and is green, the Y should not be used. Believe me, I developed the module. Now you have made 4 exact same edits and not attempted to talk so you will be reported. Qed237 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay now we can talk. As I said above, now teams has either advanced or been eliminated, because there is no "uncertainty" for the third place anymore. For that reason Y is no longer needed. Do you have a different opinion? Qed237 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: No, I got it now. Because I thought the Y indicated a team that could finish 3rd or lower, regardless to whether 3rd place guaranteed a knockout stage qualification or not. You explained nicely where I got it wrong though. Now I see, there is no necessity for any letter.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- As discussion has started above, I removed the report at the edit warring notiveboard to discuss. Qed237 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You can not call other editors for haters and prickhead Qed237 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Do not imply that other editors are stupid. SLBedit (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —Darkwind (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jackson Martínez, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: ). Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Jackson Martínez while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Brendan Rodgers
No, that wording is standard - see for example Steve Bruce which is a FA! Pep Guardiola and your version of Brendan Rogers are the incorrect exception. Northern Ireland should not be piped per WP:OVERLINK. As for manager twice I have changed the first instance to 'coach'. GiantSnowman 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015–16 La Liga. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Signature
Hi, I would appreciate if you fix your signature to end the italics so that everything other editor write after your talkpage posts wont be in italics. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Ah, I am actually so not bothered - but sorry if it causes inconvenience and I might later change it. Didn't notice it till now.OlJa 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons. Qed237 (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
I will take you in my team, I see you likewise not like the Wikipedia policy. True ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Alexiulian25: I am not a huge fan of Qed237's contributions to Wikipedia, but that's about it. No problem with Wikipedia policy. OlJa 14:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
June 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Qed237. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Qed237 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Saying the world is unlucky to have you in it is in no way acceptable, and one more time and I will have you reported. Qed237 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Oldstone James. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Premier League table.
Hopefully, it'll be easier to explain in the footnotes after the FA Cup final; what I wanted to summarise was Arsenal get the cup-winner's spot regardless of the result, but to actually describe what's going on would need the two cases (Arsenal wins and gets the CW spot by right, Man Utd gets the league spot as Arsenal finished fifth, Everton gets the EFL spot as Man Utd finished sixth; or Chelsea wins, Arsenal gets the CW spot by finishing fifth, and so on). It's subtle but we do need to be accurate! Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sceptre: Agreed 100% - that's why even what appears to be a simple explanation looks like an over-complicated mess. Maybe, we should literally just have "Man Utd qualify for CL by winning EL, Everton have passed-down EFL Cup spot from Man Utd, and FA Cup spot is vacated" before the FA Cup takes place? OlJa 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Oldstone James: I think the version I've done subsequent tonight's result should be fine, as long as Qed237 stops reintroducing the incorrect information. Sceptre (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Please only use exact quotes & don't needlessly use <nowiki></nowiki>
You wrote "'Impossible Drive' is used specifically as a term in many articles, so it is worth stating explicitly it is known as such". That exact quote does not appear in the sources. Please use only exact quotes, or paraphrase. "No reason provided for removing sourced content)" perhaps refers to my partial summary edit "Copyedit (minor) to reflect sources"; I was indicating that "quoted phrase does not appear in articles, therefore you cannot quote".
Also, please be careful not to include extraneous <nowiki></nowiki> tags.
Peaceray (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: As to <nowiki></nowiki> tags, I just didn't know how else to not make the apostrophe bold. As to the term 'Impossible Drive', all of the sources I have referenced explicitly call the EmDrive the 'Impossible Drive', 'Impossible Space Engine', and other equivalents. And, yes, that is the 'exact quote'. I don't really see what your problem is with the sources.OlJa 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Impossible Drive" as a phrase by itself does not exist in any of the sources except for the YouTube, which would be considered at best a blog source & thus not authoritative. I went to each of the other sources, searched on Impossible Drive, & found nothing. Yes, there are iterations involving the words impossible & drive. No, you did not provide an exact quote from any the four text articles. You must either provide an exact quote or paraphrase.
- IMHO, I think that my copyedit accurately reflects what you were trying to convey, although I did move it to the end of the paragraph to reduce undo influence. Replicated empirical results should trump theoretical criticism until someone proves the methodology unsound. I am not saying don't mention the criticism, just don't give it undue weight by putting it in the introductory sentence.
- Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peaceray:
- 1) How are "Impossible Propulsion Drive", "Impossible Space Engine", and "Impossible Rocket Engine" not, at least, paraphrases of 'Impossible Drive'? And "Impossible Drive" as a phrase by itself does not exist in any of the sources except for the YouTube" - that is not true. Popular Mechanics called it, as mentioned, an 'Impossible propulsion drive'. Isn't two exact iterations many paraphrases enough?
- 2)"IMHO, I think that my copyedit accurately reflects what you were trying to convey". In fact, your copyedit was the opposite of what I was trying to convey. My edit was meant to reflect what the drive had been frequently dubbed as by the media, so that other users searching for 'Impossible Drive' could find what they are looking for. For example, I had recently forgot the name of the EmDrive and had to search for 'Impossible Drive' and wasn't sure I was on the right page. My edit had nothing to do with criticism of the engine (although I do myself find it ridiculous) but instead reflected a media trend.OlJa 19:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Impossible drive or impossible engine would be a paraphrase of "Impossible Propulsion Drive", "Impossible Space Engine", and "Impossible Rocket Engine". Anything in quotes, i.e., "impossible drive" is interpreted as an exact quote & is thus not a paraphrase.
- Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Frequency does not equal consensus. The fact that NASA has certified results means either the theory is wrong, the methodology is flawed, or there is an unexplained / undetected effect that we do not discern yet. I think that it is safe to say that most will accept the authority of NASA even though we cannot explain why the phenomena occurs. Hence, placing a minority opinion in the introductory sentence would be giving it undue weight, & you can expect that some, if not myself, would re/move it. I think my phrasing is accurate. There are skeptics & they have called it impossible.
- Remember that it took millennia to extract acetylsalicylic acid from willow trees & to understand how it worked, & that even Einstein rejected the cosmological constant. Trust, but verify.
- Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: As I said, the name is not meant to assert that the theory behind the drive is wrong or hold any opinion about it, but is instead the reflection of what the media call it. I think the fact that LITERALLY every single media source calls the drive 'Impossible Drive' or equivalent is way too notable not to mention it on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is a secondary source driven by what primary sources say - no matter how controversial or untrue (WP:RS). It doesn't matter whether consensus is not reached upon the validity of the theory - the RS call it 'the Impossible Drive', and that's what it shall be. What part of what I say is incorrect? The opinion that the EmDrive is impossible is controversial, but the fact that it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' is undeniably true. If you are so stubborn and dismissive of keeping the term in bold and want to be pedantic, we can settle on "it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' or equivalent" or list all the names mentioned in the sources. Also, here some more sources using the exact phrase 'impossible drive': DailyMail, Extreme Tech, Jalopnik, Wired. By this point, I think we should call it 'impossible space drive', if you so insist on using exact quotes.OlJa 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- You're losing me when you write "that LITERALLY every single media source calls the drive 'Impossible Drive'" because I can go right to the article & find sources that do not have the word impossible in them.
- @Peaceray: As I said, the name is not meant to assert that the theory behind the drive is wrong or hold any opinion about it, but is instead the reflection of what the media call it. I think the fact that LITERALLY every single media source calls the drive 'Impossible Drive' or equivalent is way too notable not to mention it on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is a secondary source driven by what primary sources say - no matter how controversial or untrue (WP:RS). It doesn't matter whether consensus is not reached upon the validity of the theory - the RS call it 'the Impossible Drive', and that's what it shall be. What part of what I say is incorrect? The opinion that the EmDrive is impossible is controversial, but the fact that it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' is undeniably true. If you are so stubborn and dismissive of keeping the term in bold and want to be pedantic, we can settle on "it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' or equivalent" or list all the names mentioned in the sources. Also, here some more sources using the exact phrase 'impossible drive': DailyMail, Extreme Tech, Jalopnik, Wired. By this point, I think we should call it 'impossible space drive', if you so insist on using exact quotes.OlJa 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- BLUF about the Daily Mail: don't use it. See WP:DAILYMAIL for more info.
- I think that paraphrasing is appropriate, but it you want to cite the quote only with sources from which the quote came, so be it. Remove citations that do not use the exact quote. Or paraphrase & use the best sources of the lot. Don't include it in the opening sentence.
- Your arguments about keeping it in bold do not convince me & I think putting in bold would render it as WP:PEACOCK. If it is that important to you, discuss at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster.
- I strive for an encyclopedic tone, not sensationalism. I think "impossible drive" will be ephemeral, & that we well eventually get to "Although initial empirical results indicated ..." or "Although initially thought to be impossible, further examination of repeated successful results let to further investigations that revealed ...".
- I am done discussing this here. Any further discussion should involve the community, as neither of our opinions may represent consensus. Therefore, if you have more that you need to discuss about this, then I invite you to create a new section at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster.
- Peaceray (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: OK, as you wish, end of discussion, moving to talk page. Let me just have my final say here, as you don't seem to understand me at all: "I think "impossible drive" will be ephemeral, & that we well eventually get to "Although initial empirical results indicated ..."..." is definitely not a valid thing to say, as even if the drive is rendered indeed possible, the media nickname 'impossible drive' will very likely remain. For a hundredth time, the name does not in any way imply anything about the validity of the theory, and is just a nickname the media uses - just like 'a software bug'; when we say there is a bug in the program, we aren't implying that there is a actually a physical bug crawling inside the computer, do we? It's the same here. For that same reason, it should have nothing to do with WP:PEACOCK or any other NPOV policy. Your arguments about the Daily Mail are irrelevant, because 1) it is one of only many sources I listed and 2) I am not using it as a source of factual information - but rather as evidence that the media (such as the Daily Mail) tend to refer to the drive as 'impossible drive'.
- I will follow your advice and cite only the sources from which the exact phrase originated and maybe introduce the term later on in the article. I will also start a discussion on the talk page.OlJa 23:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: OK, as you wish, end of discussion, moving to talk page. Let me just have my final say here, as you don't seem to understand me at all: "I think "impossible drive" will be ephemeral, & that we well eventually get to "Although initial empirical results indicated ..."..." is definitely not a valid thing to say, as even if the drive is rendered indeed possible, the media nickname 'impossible drive' will very likely remain. For a hundredth time, the name does not in any way imply anything about the validity of the theory, and is just a nickname the media uses - just like 'a software bug'; when we say there is a bug in the program, we aren't implying that there is a actually a physical bug crawling inside the computer, do we? It's the same here. For that same reason, it should have nothing to do with WP:PEACOCK or any other NPOV policy. Your arguments about the Daily Mail are irrelevant, because 1) it is one of only many sources I listed and 2) I am not using it as a source of factual information - but rather as evidence that the media (such as the Daily Mail) tend to refer to the drive as 'impossible drive'.
- Peaceray (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Edits to Cogito
Neither Descartes’s original French nor Veitch’s translation use the punctuation you inserted. We should revert. Humanengr (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK then. It's just wrong grammatically. But if it's a historical mistake, go for it.OlJa 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thx, will do. FWIW, a Google search for “fewer commas” shows that is the trend. One humorous cmt from that search: “As a fellow over-inserter of commas, I sympathize! If I pause, I insert, well, you know. A comma! 🙂” (And I’m a recovering commaholic.) Humanengr (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Humanengr: Oh, no! It started off so well... The comma, unfortunately, is not a representation of a pause in speech - and you can't like to insert it or hate to insert it: in most cases, if it should be there, you should put it, and if it shouldn't, you shouldn't put it. In this particular example, there was only one grammatically correct option: the one I used; all other ways of punctuation it would be wrong. But it's good to know that you have respect for commas! Because a lot of people seem to just audaciously ignore them, and their sentences become impossible to read :)OlJa 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thx, will do. FWIW, a Google search for “fewer commas” shows that is the trend. One humorous cmt from that search: “As a fellow over-inserter of commas, I sympathize! If I pause, I insert, well, you know. A comma! 🙂” (And I’m a recovering commaholic.) Humanengr (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
Your recent editing history at Creationism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)