Doug Weller (talk | contribs) Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (cf) (TW) Tag: contentious topics alert |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Answers in Genesis. (TW) |
||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
For additional information, please see the [[WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[WP:ArbCom|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
For additional information, please see the [[WP:AC/DS#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[WP:ArbCom|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== March 2019 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and violating the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], as you did at [[:Answers in Genesis]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
Revision as of 14:36, 31 March 2019
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
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)
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)
Nomination of Jason Lisle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Lisle 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/Jason Lisle (2nd 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Cosmogony again
I also withdraw my "friendly warning" (well, not fully - you can keep the "friendly" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: Haha, good one ;) OlJa 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Oldstone James. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Oldstone James. 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)
Multiverse (religion)
Hi,
Since we have been editing each others changes in the article on "Multiverse (religion)" back and forth, I've come to your talk page to understand your position a little better and to try to work things out. Yes, it is true that I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, and yes, it is also true that English is not my first language. But from what I understand from your talk page, those are not the only things that are going on. I read about edit wars, personal attacks on people and even warnings that your acts can lead to edit blocking or a topic ban on all topics related to religion! Have no fear; I don't want to report you at all. I simply want to understand you and save each other a lot of time and energy.
Perhaps, as a beginner (and a non native English speaker) I was to enthusiastic making radical changes to an article that already existed, and it is good that you corrected me and made me aware of all the policies of Wikipedia. Also your advice to begin with small changes is a very good one. But what I don't understand is that you even edited the changes that I made in response to your comments.
To keep it very practical: I want to change the introduction text to the article mentioned above, since it is now incorrect, because of our editing back and forth. Especially the line "These religious cosmologies have aided (...) spiritual development or healing." (coming from me) has no relation to the rest of the text anymore. I suggest you let me correct my own line and the other text parts coming from my hand, making them correspond with your text parts and also with your comments. Then I will leave this article as it is and make no further changes to it or to any other Wikipedia-article whatsoever, now or in the future, for I want to spent my time and energy positively and not negatively (if that is correct English grammar or good enough for you to understand ;) --S.w.goedhart (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S.w.goedhart: Hello there again. I must first specify that instead of constantly reverting your edits, I tried to keep the best parts and remove the bad parts. If you look at the state of the article now, the majority of what you have written is still; however, some unsourced material, occasional poor grammar, and the decision to delete almost the entire article altogether without coming to an agreement on the talk page first have been removed/reverted. I did not try to undermine your contributions in any way - I just wanted to improve them. If you feel I have done so, go ahead and add back whatever you feel I have unrightfully retracted.
- As for my history, yes, in the past, I was naive and did launch personal attacks and edit-wars. However, the last such occasion was, I believe, four years ago, and since then I have learnt that Wikipedia works differently than I thought it did, and now almost all of my edits are either kept or reverted for reasons that I agree with. Talking about the proposed topic ban and the edit war warnings on religion-related topics, this was done by a collection of questionable users, some of whom have been banned indefinitely, and I don't take these warnings too seriously.
- Finally, about the intro: I reverted your last edit on the basis that it didn't seem to add any new information or otherwise change the content but instead added unencyclopedic language (such as "all kinds of" - WP:WEASEL) and removed a non-duplicate link (realm of the dead). I have then revisited the revert and added the parts of your original edit that I considered useful. Of course, as I said, if you think I am wrong, go ahead and add in what I may have missed when reverting your edit.
- Before I finish my reply, please don't let this encounter represent what your experience on Wikipedia will be like, and even more so don't quit Wikipedia altogether just because of this encounter. Of course, the more editors - the better, so losing a potential Wikipedian for a silly reason is always a bad sight. Furthermore, you have been adding what I suppose may be valuable content (although my poor knowledge of the matter doesn't let me conclude on that definitively), so I would advise you to continue editing this very article. To reiterate, I have not been removing or modifying some content that you have added because I want to be negative - it's just that some of it happened not to comply with Wikipedia policies. Such removals have happened to every new editor on Wikipedia, and removals like these will happen less and less the more you edit and/or understand these policies. Hopefully, I have convinced you to carry on editing, and I look forward to seeing your work! OlJa 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldstone James:Thanx for your positive answer. Honestly, my goal is not to dig in your past or to hold your past against you in any way. I was just trying to understand you and to work things out. My act of deleting the entire article was a beginner's fault, I admit. I tried to reorganize the content, making it more subject-matter oriented and less of a random list of religions. In fact, I saved before I deleted and I was going to use the original content later, but it probably wasn't the best way to go forward and it was good of you to intervene. Like I said; a beginner's fault, but at least I did use the talk page first ;)
About the sources; I have many good academic sources but not all of them are in English, so I'm still looking for good alternatives. Religions (including Religious cosmologies) have been studied by scholars extensively for centuries. In recent years this study has seen an important widening with the arise of esotericism, which allows scholars to understand religious texts even better. I tried to use this new information to reorganize the content of the article, as I said, making it more subject-matter oriented. I don't think that qualifies as "original research", because I did not use any primary sources or anything. I was just reorganizing on the basis of new academic insights. But I don't have a book on religious multiverses either, so, I admit, it may be a borderline case.
I will see how far I will go with this article or with Wikipedia in general. It depends on the time and energy that I have, and also on the reactions that I'm getting. I don't want to end up in editing wars with questionable users, like you did in the past. Just the start of such a war would mean exit for me. So, we'll see. For the moment I will stick to small changes, like you advised me. --S.w.goedhart (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S.w.goedhart: I am happy that you recognised your mistake; this already means that you are learning. As for the sources, the fact that they are in a foreign language does not matter. A foreign resource is better than no resource. What I meant by original research is that a number of key statements did not have any references at all to back them up. Previously, your entire paragraphs were constructed around these statements, which made the entire sections dubious. You have since both added references and removed some unsourced content. However, some such unsourced content still exists, such as the statement "The animistic traditions of indigenous peoples are the oldest known forms of religion that still exist". I have tried to find a similar statement of animism's main page but failed.
- Yes, perhaps you are not as stubborn as I am, which is definitely a good thing, as it sure as hell does help with your two priorities (time and energy) ;) I am glad that you are not leaving Wikipedia for good, and I truly believe you won't have a bad time editing! OlJa 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldstone James: Thanx for all your help, brother. I think I'll leave it at that.--S.w.goedhart (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S.w.goedhart: Alright, it's your decision. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Feel free to come back if you spot any errors or want to add new content to other pages you come across in the future!OlJa 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldstone James: deleted.
@Oldstone James: Sorry about the previous message. I was a little disappointed with the changes that you made. But I guess you know wikipedia policies better than I do, and they probably have a function. I'm still learning, everyday, with everything. Hopefully no hard feelings from you (for long). You're still my brother and I do thank you for all your help, improving the article together. Best of luck --S.w.goedhart (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S.w.goedhart: Hello. I am very grateful for your apology; however, I still have some issues that I'd like to clear up.
- Even though you have now deleted your previous comments, it is still clear that you think that I made the changes that I did because I was irrational and biased. However, that's not true: I made them because I'm a human being, who has furthermore admitted to not be very knowledgeable on the subject, and human beings, especially those who are not experts on the subject, are bound to make mistakes. What you must then do is be bold correct these mistakes, citing reliable sources and adding an explanotary note, which will make me understand what I did wrong. In that case, I will either agree with you, or, if I don't, I will start a discussion. What you must NOT do is abandon Wikipedia entirely on the basis that you are not bothered to edit-war: 1) if I make a fallacious edit, that does not mean that I am starting an edit-war with you and 2) I am not at all representative of the Wikipedia community. Even if you don't like collaborating with me, there are still thousands upon thousands of other articles that you can also edit.
- On a related note, if I revert your edit, that does NOT mean that I made it on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines. If I do cite some guidelines, what you must do is read them and take in the learnt information, or, alternatively, cite them back at me if you think I am misusing them.
- Luckily, I see that you have done exactly that and proceeded to make the corrections, which I think were, for the most part, a useful contribution, though I did make some further corrections.
- Hopefully, you have gotten my message, and I hope to see you editing in the future :)OlJa 21:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oldstone James: Sorry if I wasted too much of your time and energy as a beginner. I didn't understand what your problem was with the text, and I had so many sources that it would be of topic to name them all. Therefore I started a new article, but that wasn't good for you either. As I understand it, you can live with the current text, and our little edit "struggle" is over? Then, I wish you all the best with your wikipedia, because it isn't my thing at all, as you might have noticed. Once again: good luck!--S.w.goedhart (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S.w.goedhart: No, that's fine! Every new editor will waste someone's time. Also, what "struggle"? I thought it was a good collaborative effort between you and me, and together we have managed to improve the article by correcting each other's mistakes. Either way, thanks a lot for your contribution and the wishes, and don't hesitate to come back if that ever crosses your mind!OlJa 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Big Bang
You changed content at Big Bang from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, you then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also makes no sense. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: Can you please explain why it doesn't make sense? What part confuses you? And how could it be phrased to make sense to you?OlJa 17:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have missed out "and does not comment" though I'm still not sure that this is what the source says. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh shoot. And yes, you're right once again, the source doesn't say that, and what I meant is not at all what I wrote. I should instead have written "as well as the existence of Pre–Big Bang physics. Let me know if you agree with this formulation.OlJa 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your edits are becoming tendentious, "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: No, my edits are not tendentious at all, they are just me trying to correct a simple grammar mistake again and again, but obviously failing due to my terrible attentiveness. You, on the other hand, are reverting my edits simply because they have a very simple and correctable grammar mistake, getting angry in the process, and then calling my edits tendentious. I agree that my edits have so far all had an issue, but that doesn't mean that they should be reverted. They should be corrected.OlJa 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- You should NOT expect others to clean up your mess, I have little idea what you are trying to achieve so cannot correct it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: It's always better to avoid conflict, and it's also better (for both you and me, and also for your own time) to fix a minor grammar mistake than to revert the edit altogether and start an edit-war because of it (WP:HANDLE). You know exactly what I meant, which was to simply remove 'time and space' from the list, as that was not sourced. Are you okay with me doing that again, but changing 'their' to 'its'? Are you additionally okay with including Pre-big bang physics?OlJa 19:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you try and engage others on the talk page at Big Bang and gain consensus for your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: It's not a big deal, and it's unlikely anyone other than you and me will engage in that discussion; it's just a matter of a simple grammatical mistake. Are YOU okay with me removing 'time and space' from the list and changing 'their' to 'its', or are you not? Additionally, are YOU okay with adding the existence of pre-Big Bang physics to the list?OlJa 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the source [1] it actually states "The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed" I'm not sure why you think it doesn't say that? Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: It's not a big deal, and it's unlikely anyone other than you and me will engage in that discussion; it's just a matter of a simple grammatical mistake. Are YOU okay with me removing 'time and space' from the list and changing 'their' to 'its', or are you not? Additionally, are YOU okay with adding the existence of pre-Big Bang physics to the list?OlJa 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you try and engage others on the talk page at Big Bang and gain consensus for your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: It's always better to avoid conflict, and it's also better (for both you and me, and also for your own time) to fix a minor grammar mistake than to revert the edit altogether and start an edit-war because of it (WP:HANDLE). You know exactly what I meant, which was to simply remove 'time and space' from the list, as that was not sourced. Are you okay with me doing that again, but changing 'their' to 'its'? Are you additionally okay with including Pre-big bang physics?OlJa 19:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- You should NOT expect others to clean up your mess, I have little idea what you are trying to achieve so cannot correct it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: No, my edits are not tendentious at all, they are just me trying to correct a simple grammar mistake again and again, but obviously failing due to my terrible attentiveness. You, on the other hand, are reverting my edits simply because they have a very simple and correctable grammar mistake, getting angry in the process, and then calling my edits tendentious. I agree that my edits have so far all had an issue, but that doesn't mean that they should be reverted. They should be corrected.OlJa 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your edits are becoming tendentious, "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh shoot. And yes, you're right once again, the source doesn't say that, and what I meant is not at all what I wrote. I should instead have written "as well as the existence of Pre–Big Bang physics. Let me know if you agree with this formulation.OlJa 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have missed out "and does not comment" though I'm still not sure that this is what the source says. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: For some reason, I cntrl-f-ed 'space, time' and also 'space and time' and didn't find anything. Not sure why that happened; perhaps the order was wrong. My problem with that is that the Big Bang theory still assumes that time and space didn't exist before[1] at t=0, which may confuse some readers. I don't really know what to do about that. Maybe say 'assumes the existence of time, space, and energy at/during the Big Bang'?OlJa 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Answers in Genesis. It is clear to me from the edit history of this page and from the talkpage that you are engaging in tendentious POV pushing. I suggest stopping now, or a topic ban or worse may be in your future leveled at either arbitration enforcement or by administrators. jps (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 14:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- ^ Planck Collaboration (2016). "Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 594: A13, Table 4. arXiv:1502.01589. Bibcode:2016A&A...594A..13P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830.