Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Oldstone James (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
Your recent edit on [[Answers in Genesis]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=892907975&oldid=892719370]) removed the 'the' in "instead supports the [[pseudoscientific]] [[creation science]]". However, I believe the article should still be in place. Consider the sentence "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him". Clearly, "Tom" is a proper noun, and so it wouldn't normally require an article. However, in this case, an article is needed to indicate that it was Tom who said that "it was too much of a bother", and it is also the same Tom who is "lazy". Getting rid of the article, in this case, would create the impression that "Tom" and "lazy Tom" are two different people. Linking that back to our case, getting rid of the 'the' in "the pseudoscientific creation science" creates the false impression that "pseudoscientific creation science" is the common term used to refer to the pseudoscience of "creation science". With that in mind, please reconsider your most recent edit.[[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>]] 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
Your recent edit on [[Answers in Genesis]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=892907975&oldid=892719370]) removed the 'the' in "instead supports the [[pseudoscientific]] [[creation science]]". However, I believe the article should still be in place. Consider the sentence "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him". Clearly, "Tom" is a proper noun, and so it wouldn't normally require an article. However, in this case, an article is needed to indicate that it was Tom who said that "it was too much of a bother", and it is also the same Tom who is "lazy". Getting rid of the article, in this case, would create the impression that "Tom" and "lazy Tom" are two different people. Linking that back to our case, getting rid of the 'the' in "the pseudoscientific creation science" creates the false impression that "pseudoscientific creation science" is the common term used to refer to the pseudoscience of "creation science". With that in mind, please reconsider your most recent edit.[[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>]] 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::"...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "''the'' pseudoscientific one and ''the'' one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "''a'' pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at [[Talk:Answers in Genesis]]? Just a thought. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
::"...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "''the'' pseudoscientific one and ''the'' one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "''a'' pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at [[Talk:Answers in Genesis]]? Just a thought. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::Personally, I don't see how it's incredibly awkward, and I am pretty positive it is correct usage-wise. Your version would also be correct if "pseudoscientific creation science" was a term, but, unfortunately, it isn't. |
|||
:::Let me explain the function of "the" here again: the definite article, used in this way, does ''not'' imply there are two forms of creation science - just as saying "the lazy Tom" does not imply that there is also a Tom that is not lazy; in fact, it implies the opposite: that the creation science that we are referring to is pseudoscientific - in the same way that "the lazy Tom" implies that the Tom that we are talking about, who is the ''only'' Tom there is, is lazy. |
|||
:::I didn't post this on Talk:Answers in Genesis because I thought it was a really minor issue, and that you'd simply self-revert and that would be it. If you don't do that, however, I will probably take it to MOS. |
|||
:::Also, I know you probably won't take this advice seriously, but I think that, when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar (such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&diff=892221193&oldid=892220874 this one] (adding "for" to "advocates") and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_Genesis_History%3F&diff=858928520&oldid=858848181 this one]) but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar.[[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>]] 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:49, 17 April 2019
I'm getting ready to write a guideline proposal; be my guest in contributing. Mangoe (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a list somewhere of the AfDs that can serve as "precedent" including, of course, the J. Barnett saga and a few others. My argument has always been that the general rule for accepting a prodigy as article-worthy would be serious (as in not off-hand comments) engagement by the epistemic communities in which prodigious achievement is claimed. For example, if the claim is that the child is a prodigy in mathematics, there should be some evidence that the child has actually published in the requisite journals. If the child is claimed to be a prodigy in music, there should be some evidence of performance at the level of a professional achievement that would normally apply to musicians (or a recording contract). Etc. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Mokele-mbembe
Hello. I have never seen you visibly edit on any article on fabulous creatures whatsoever, so I don't know what sort of ideas you have.
But when you revert an article (Mokele-mbembe) to a purged version, don't just tell us you think Bloodofox's edit is superior, as that gives us no indication as to specifically what underlying reasoning you yourself have to make you think the purge is justified.
You need to take responsibility for your own edits, and be able to articulate the reasons why you think the 32kbytes of content merits removal. You can't just say this other guy did it and you agree with him. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS. I have read your arguments and the other arguments, read both versions, and I have made my conclusion. jps (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop edit-warring on this without demonstrating you've read any of the source material to make a decision on your own as to what is WP:DUE content or not.
- Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision. That is not responsible editing behavior in Wikipedia.
- Specifically, tell me how you yourself justify the "conclusion" you have reached that the expeditions of Powell and Mackal should be eliminated altogether. These are quite central to the topic. They are described at length even in Prothero's critical even antagonistic treatment of the topic in Abominable Science.[1] --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Kiyoweap, you are currently at 3RR and have been reverted by three people. Complaining about edit warring here is only weakening your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Specifically, tell me how you yourself justify the "conclusion" you have reached that the expeditions of Powell and Mackal should be eliminated altogether. These are quite central to the topic. They are described at length even in Prothero's critical even antagonistic treatment of the topic in Abominable Science.[1] --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Question
Why are you on your 10th username? That seems a bit... excessive. Enigmamsg 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Skylab mutiny?
Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis
Dear ජපස, @JzG: and @Jps: and just in that action I have shown my ignorance of coding and wiki etiquette! Anyway my question is concerning your signatures; can an editor use two signatures at the same time, and it seems to me in the same conversations, and for what reason. My concern, being honest, was that yet another disruptive editor flying by Aquatic ape hypothesis following some article / publicity / etc, (in this case an action which, at first glance, I doubt, but will, when I can, check what changes have happened), and editing what has taken many many editors a very long time to get to a reasonably informative and balanced state as it is. Am happy for either / all to reply. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is your confusion over the fact that I had to switch usernames? If so, I apologize. It did not have to do with the AAH article. jps (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was, still is a bit, but I will get my head around it. Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 15:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
ජපස or jps
Hi. Another editor saw fit to remove both my comments and yours, but I found your response, nonetheless; thank you. I am, in fact, curious, but not savvy about technical issues. Sometime in the past I figured out how to sign my name YoPienso instead of Yopienso, which is my official user name. Now I can't find any of that stuff again. To me, that's a slight, unconfusing difference--changing one lower-case letter to upper case. However, I did not recognize ජපස as your initials in another language since I'm ignorant of that language. I wondered if they were characters of some alphabet or script unknown to me, or if they were some kind of emoji or decoration. I never imagined when I saw comments signed with ජපස and other comments signed with jps that one and the same person made them. This gave the appearance of two people holding the same opinions; in other words, it gave the appearance of a false consensus between two different individuals. Hence, my comment about sockpuppetry. I would think this could be confusing to other WP editors, too. You would likely become frustrated trying to explain to me how you have only one signature while I clearly "believe I see" two, so no need to trouble yourself with it. Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Expelled
Would you care to respond to this? You may have missed it in the shuffle. Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ark Encounter article ban lifted
Hi. Per this, your article ban on Ark Encounter has been lifted. Let me know if it was logged somewhere and if that needs to be removed. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! jps (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've logged the successful appeal here, Regentspark. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC).
Happy Holidays!
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
poll
Hi, we've interacted, although it unlikely you remember I want to put that on the table and establish this is not some sort of grudge-post. I do hope this message finds you well :-) This is not your field I think, but we are both skeptiks of a type and I am curious, if asked, then what would your answer be? What is a gorilla? cygnis insignis 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- A genus of great ape. jps (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- A simple question, a simple answer. At least almost … What is a "great ape"? It is nice to see you are still around. cygnis insignis 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- A family of primates. jps (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I needed this sanity check, thank you mate. cygnis insignis 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- A family of primates. jps (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- A simple question, a simple answer. At least almost … What is a "great ape"? It is nice to see you are still around. cygnis insignis 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Friend Dlo
You are a friend of Dlo, a F()//?AOo)))))000000oTt77Jjjjj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.202.119 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis (no article necessary)
Your recent edit on Answers in Genesis ([2]) removed the 'the' in "instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science". However, I believe the article should still be in place. Consider the sentence "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him". Clearly, "Tom" is a proper noun, and so it wouldn't normally require an article. However, in this case, an article is needed to indicate that it was Tom who said that "it was too much of a bother", and it is also the same Tom who is "lazy". Getting rid of the article, in this case, would create the impression that "Tom" and "lazy Tom" are two different people. Linking that back to our case, getting rid of the 'the' in "the pseudoscientific creation science" creates the false impression that "pseudoscientific creation science" is the common term used to refer to the pseudoscience of "creation science". With that in mind, please reconsider your most recent edit.OlJa 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- "...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "the pseudoscientific one and the one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "a pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at Talk:Answers in Genesis? Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see how it's incredibly awkward, and I am pretty positive it is correct usage-wise. Your version would also be correct if "pseudoscientific creation science" was a term, but, unfortunately, it isn't.
- Let me explain the function of "the" here again: the definite article, used in this way, does not imply there are two forms of creation science - just as saying "the lazy Tom" does not imply that there is also a Tom that is not lazy; in fact, it implies the opposite: that the creation science that we are referring to is pseudoscientific - in the same way that "the lazy Tom" implies that the Tom that we are talking about, who is the only Tom there is, is lazy.
- I didn't post this on Talk:Answers in Genesis because I thought it was a really minor issue, and that you'd simply self-revert and that would be it. If you don't do that, however, I will probably take it to MOS.
- Also, I know you probably won't take this advice seriously, but I think that, when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar (such as this one (adding "for" to "advocates") and this one) but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar.OlJa 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- "...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "the pseudoscientific one and the one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "a pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at Talk:Answers in Genesis? Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)