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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• OK Then. Oldstone James (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Yes, I will write a report for the Chelsea game, I'll do it shortly. Andre666 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ^Ol^Ja 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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? ^Ol^Ja 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Sceptre: I believe it is perfect right now; if Qed237 edits something you believe is inaccurate, just say that on his talk page - you should be able to come to an agreement quite easily. ^Ol^Ja 15:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.^Ol^Ja 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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.^Ol^Ja 19:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

@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.^Ol^Ja 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

@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.^Ol^Ja 23:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK then. It's just wrong grammatically. But if it's a historical mistake, go for it.^Ol^Ja 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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 :)^Ol^Ja 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also withdraw my "friendly warning" (well, not fully - you can keep the "friendly" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Haha, good one ;) ^Ol^Ja 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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! ^Ol^Ja 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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! ^Ol^Ja 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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!^Ol^Ja 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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 :)^Ol^Ja 21:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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!^Ol^Ja 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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?^Ol^Ja 17:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^Ol^Ja 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.^Ol^Ja 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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?^Ol^Ja 19:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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?^Ol^Ja 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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'?^Ol^Ja 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March 2019 I told you:

"You have two choices. [1] create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for your change, or [2] Go ahead and assume that your change is OK without checking, make the change, and get blocked. Most administrators have a very low tolerance for someone who edits after edit-warring protection expires without a clear survey of participants asking if they object to that specific change. When in doubt, ask. If you have no doubts, ask anyway."[2]

I see that you have chosen #2, and as I predicted, you were blocked for it. :( This does not make me happy.

I also note that an uninvolved administrator reviewed the block and upheld it. You could ask a hundred admins and they all would tell you that it was a good block.

I have been trying to explain to you were you are going wrong and to help you to be a productive editor who doesn't end up blocked. So far you have refused to listen (and I apologize if my frustration got the better of me). Are you now willing to listen? I think you have the potential to be a really good Wikipedia editor, but it is clear that what you are doing is not working. On the plus side you are likable, intelligent, and clearly want to improve the encyclopedia. Getting along with others and working together to form a consensus? Not so much.

In a week your block will expire and you once again have two choices.

Choice [A]: listen to my advice and the advice others have given you. I don't expect you to agree with all of it, but I would like to see us have a calm discussion about your behavior and I would like to see us reaching agreement on at least some things. I would very much like to see you figure out what it is that you are doing that is pissing off multiple editors, and stop doing it. You might start with choice #1 above.

Choice [B]: Dig in your heels, insist that you are right, continue on the path you are on, and end up experiencing a series of progressively longer blocks ending with you being blocked indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much better approach from you, for which I am very, very grateful. If you read my unblock reason, you will see that I was actually proposing to block another editor, jps, who in my opinion thoroughly deserves at least a warning of being blocked for edit-warring without consensus - not so much expecting to get unblocked myself. If anything, this block might serve me as somewhat of a relief, as in this past week my frustration levels have skyrocketed to a degree that I've probably never experienced before in my life, and thus kept me on Wikipedia nearly 24/7 despite me having other things to worry about. Now I know that even if I want to do anything, I can't, which may help me get over it.

Again, I know exactly where I've gone 'wrong' as in why I got blocked, but, honestly speaking, I still don't understand where I've gone 'wrong' with my proposals, and no editor has yet pointed it out to me, including yourself. The only objection to my main proposal seems to be that it's not an improvement over the status quo, but that's not really helpful, and shouldn't even count as an argument per WP:DONTREVERT (well, at least in theory; in practice, I see that this rule doesn't apply, somehow). I am definitely, 100%, maybe even more than that, willing to listen to any possible improvement to my proposal or any way I can make my proposal more likely to be agreed upon. Once again, though, I haven't heard much advice on that at all, only being told not to bludgeon, an advice which I think I more or less followed - at least on AiG's talk page.

It's nice to hear that you regard me as intelligent :) Although 'likeable'? Really? Not sure how you got to that conclusion XD. I greatly appreciate your desire to help me become a great editor (I really do mean it), but if being a great editor requires, with all due respect, stating as a fact that an organisation that says that "biblical faith and reason go well together" and that "God encourages us to reason" actually means by that that "biblical faith and reason do not go well together" and that "God will eternally punish us for reasoning", and then using a combination of wikilawyering about WP:RSPRIMARY and some rather obvious WP:SYNTH to justify this statement, I think I'm fine being the editor that I am.

I think this last case was a nail in the coffin of my Wikipedia journey, after which either of two things will happen: 1) I will find a way to accept that that's just how Wikipedia works and maybe do some occasional wikignoming, correcting some grammar and perhaps adding a few sources here and there (although, as I have learnt, even that can be reverted on the grounds of POV pushing), but that will be it; or 2) my frustration will keep knocking on the door every time I happen to be on Wikipedia, in which case I will probably end up getting a few more blocks and eventually get blocked indefinitely, as you have described in choice [B]. So far, I am not sure which one it will be, but it definitely won't be choice [A], as I have already decided for myself that attempting to make any progress on Wikipedia if the 'great' editors don't like it is an exercise in futility.

Finally, before I go, let me ask you, or anyone reading this, for that matter, to 1) undo all my edits in the Answers in Genesis article, including the wording and punctuation corrections I made to the 'three central points' paragraph; the editors have made it utterly clear to me that they weren't seeking any help, controversial or uncontroversial, on my part, so no help it will be. Let the article be as they like it to be, and I will stay out of it; and 2) note my final proposed compromise on the 'God's Word vs human reason' matter: "they present this as the choice of one's personal ultimate authority for truth, with God's Word and human reason being the two possible options, and those choosing the latter over the former liable to perishment", which is, in my opinion, the closest representation of what the source is trying to convey. Now, what you do with this sentence, and whether you find this useful or even bother to read it, I don't care, but I just felt that I needed to put it out there. Happy editing and hope that you don't have to go to the trouble of encountering someone as persistent and pesky as me in the future :p^Ol^Ja 19:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision (18:44, 31 March 2019) is identical to the version as of 9 February 2019[3] so any edits you or anyone else made during that period are gone. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, nevermind 1), then!^Ol^Ja 20:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: [I am blocked and hence am forced to bring you to my talk page] First of all, thanks SO much for taking your time to analyse the situation and propose a number of helpful compromises.

Pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism and dangling modifier

I must say that I am a huge fan of your 1H version, as it avoids both a dangling modifier and a meaningless statement (that results that don't conform to their view are rejected, which is true for every possible view by definition ([4]). The only thing I would want to add to your version is a basis for their rejection of scientific investigation, which is biblical inerrancy^[1], and remove intelligent design from the statement, as AiG are known to be opponents of the idea^[2]. Perhaps something like this? It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis with a young Earth, promoting pseudoscientific explanations from a creationist perspective and, out of belief in biblical inerrancy, rejecting scientific investigations that contradict their version of the creation narrative.

Their beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature

You asked the question of whether AiG reject all natural causes in favour of the supernatural when it comes to the origins of the universe. The answer seems to be that yes, they do. However, note that the statement also states that all general natural explanations of nature are also rejected. This is false: for example, AiG do believe in natural selection - just not in 'evolution'^[3]. Furthermore, as the helpful quote provided by Guy Macon shows us, AiG do, in fact, accept that most phenomena can be explained through laws of nature (as can be deduced from the sentence, "Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so"). My proposal would be either to just remove the word nature or simply add the word 'many'.

Views and activities

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said that the debate about human reason/God's Word "that is not reflected in these before-and-after snippets". However, there is this diff which shows what the debate was about. Essentially, I just removed the part that was not supported by the source, and is in fact directly contradicted by this statement made by AiG themselves: ^[4]. I also very recently came up with a compromise, but even my own compromise seems to involve slight WP:SYNTH, so I am not sure whether it completely solves the issue. Either way, here it is: "they present this as the choice of one's personal ultimate authority for truth, with God's Word and human reason being the two possible options, and those choosing the latter over the former liable to perishment". However, as I said, in my opinion, it is better to just get rid of that statement completely just to be safe.

P.S.

I don't think I've done my appreciation of your post justice. Your post seems to address every single issue that you have found raised in the huge talk page discussion, and furthermore provide a solution for every one of those issues. Moreover, it identifies possible problems with the proposed solutions and attempts to address these as well. That's a hell of a good job you've done there - at least in my opinion. Once again, thank you very much for taking the time to write this brilliant post. That said, feel free to oppose everything I've said in this message, but I have a strong feeling we can make progress here.^Ol^Ja 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might find this useful

@1990'sguy: perhaps not all hope is lost, after all?^Ol^Ja 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope not. I will try to comment on the AiG talk page shortly -- I'm still busy at the moment, unfortunately, and don't have time to draft talk page comments. I'm sorry to see your block, I don't think it should have been made, at least for a whole week, but not very surprising -- here's the ANI discussion I told you about earlier so you know what I mean: [5] --1990'sguy (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's fine by me - if you don't have the time to edit on Wikipedia, don't - I just thought you'd want to look at my version before taking to AiG's talk page. About my block, I think I was unfortunate that I received the block LITERALLY hours/minutes before AiG's protection and EdChem's post, meaning I can't even contribute to the discussion which will eventually probably lead to some consensus, but other than that, technically, I have violated 4RR, so I can't really complain. Although I still think a week is a bit harsh - especially with the AiG page protection. Looking at the ANI, I can only be grateful that Jytdog was blocked indefinitely, as, in addition to you, they also tried to have another admin (!) blocked, and all of that with absolutely no justification. But there are still other editors and even admins like that (Doug Weller), so you always need to be careful.^Ol^Ja 10:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah...about that. As soon as the protection expired you (1990's guy) and Bloodofox immediately went back to editing the page instead of seeking consensus on the talk page, resulting in another week of protection. Gee, thanks!

And what, exactly, has your editing instead of seeking consensus on the talk page accomplished? Let's review, shall we?

The current, protected version of the page (18:44, 31 March 2019) is identical to the version as of 12:34 9 February 2019[6]. 74 article edits by 21 users (and 171 talk page edits by 20 users) over a period of 7 weeks have accomplished exactly zero.

And you (1990's guy), who were so eager to edit the page instead of discussing, have contributed zero to the discussion since the latest protection.

Based upon our conversation above, I believe that Oldstone James "gets it" and that he will join the conversion next week, seek consensus before editing in things that he knows someone will object to, make some insightful comments (and not too many of them) backed up by good sources, and that we will all get along just fine without anyone causing any more admin actions. What will you (1990's guy) do? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not spend ~25 minutes drafting talk page comments (as I just did) when I could be writing the (so far, >43-page) research paper I'm working on right now. But, I did just take the time to comment. And yes, Guy Macon, you explicitly stated in your edit summary that other editors could re-add non-controversial edits that you removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, I would have responded earlier but your ping didn't work. Thank you for your constructive and generous comments, I'm glad that you found them valuable. I have interests in pseudoscience areas and contribute to them from time-to-time, and when I saw the post at AN and the fights going on, I hoped that a contribution from an uninvolved editor might help. Taking this thread in order:

• You may have noticed that I have struck the mentions of ID already, someone else already pointed out that error of mine. Adding some mention of biblical inerrancy seems reasonable to me, though I'm not sure that 1H is finding great favour on the AiG talk page. There was so much debate about that single sentence, with efforts made to untangle / rearrange it, but none in the way that seemed to me to be the way to help it to flow. Hopefully consensus will form around something along these lines.
• As noted on the talk page, I misread the diff and was concerned at adding "many" as I think that implies something that isn't true because the sentence targets universal origins. Maybe some modification is needed elsewhere regarding the points you raise (though the description you note shows that AiG is misrepresenting or misunderstanding both natural selection and evolution – what a shock!) but I don't see it in the sentence I was considering. As a general proposition, trying to do twelve things at once to a highly watched / controversial WP article often has the same result as trying to juggle twelve active chainsaws – amazing if you succeed, but awfully messy if most of us try it.
• I realise that the human reason / God thing is in the history but I left it alone partly as I feel there is a bigger flaw underneath it. There is an unspoken assumption that God exists to the dichotomy, that AiG would take as axiomatic, but is problematic as a base for a scientific perspective. I'd need to look carefully at sources to really come up with something WP suitable there.
• Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate my thoroughness. I do try to be comprehensive, to look at what problems might arise and to anticipate approaches / seek compromises that do not raise new issues. I hope you are right that progress can be made, and your willingness to discuss, consider compromises and alternatives, and to build on suggestions of others are encouraging.
• Sadly, what I find less encouraging is some of what follows on after your responses to me. Accepting your block was justified is good, even if you are not happy with the length, and you recognise that the timing was unfortunate given the discussion that has happened since. Guy Macon's post could have been more helpful and blocked editors are known to vent. However, even if you are right, why debate history and rehash conflict when it's only going to make collaborative editing in a respectful environment more difficult? There are times when it is worth deciding to let someone else have the last word, even if you don't agree. There are times when it's better not to offer advice, even if you are right, when it isn't likely to be received in a positive way. A blocked editor talking about and reflecting on their own editing behaviour can be good... the same editor offering others advice on behaviour is more likely to be seen as provocative or clueless (or both). Your response to me is generous in its praise, shows clear gratitude, demonstrates reflection and a desire to collaborate, and creates an image of an editor who will contribute positively. I was surprised by it, and I want you to know that I appreciate what you have written. I ask that you reflect on how the bottom part of this thread colours the impression created by the first parts. We all make mistakes, use poor judgement, and invite consequences, like the events that now see you blocked... but if we also recognise those mistakes, and learn, and grow, then what we've done doesn't have to define how others see us or who we are. Please, be the productive Wikipedian that you've shown you can be. Thanks for reading, and I hope I am being helpful rather than patronising. I'm happy to chat further on the content issues. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: (hopefully, the ping works this time around). Thanks for replying; for some reason, these pings are always hit and miss, and I can never quite figure out how they work, but that's about the most I can do while I am blocked :)

• I've just checked the talk page, and what I have found is that, so far, there are singular preferences for 1A (1990'sguy), 1B (dave souza, though, as they admit, a citation might be needed), and 1F (StAnselm), and three preferences for 1H (me, you, Guy Macon). 1F and 1H are really similar and are just a matter of clarity, so, based on what I have seen, the consensus seems to move in the 1H direction. Either way, I am happy with everything that is 1) clear 2) has no grammatical mistakes or ambiguities, such as a dangling modifier, 3) is factually accurate, and 4) contains a clear basis for rejection of science. I think my modified version of 1H ticks all 4 boxes, but any other version which does so too, I am happy with. Perhaps you or any other editor could bring my version of 1H to the talk page to see whether editors agree/are fine with it?
• If the sentence only targeted universal origins, adding "many" would be unnecessary and incomplete. However, it only concerns other aspects of nature, which is where the problem arises. I agree; AiG's view of what natural selection is doesn't really make much sense (if a mutation is defined as 'new' genetic information, how can natural selection through mutation not generate new genetic information?), but they still admit that natural selection is a natural cause, already falsifying the existing statement. Furthermore, as can be seen in a quote from Guy Macon's comment, AiG still believe that the majority of things have a natural explanation. Also, yes, trying to do a whole bunch of things at once and succeeding in all of them is very hard, but my approach was actually more like "if even one change goes through, that's already better than no change". Basically, I was starting to get desperate.
• Talking about reason/God, I personally don't see where the assumption that God exists is made, if that's what you mean. However, if you do, please point it out. Or do you mean that AiG make that assumption? In that case, I don't see a problem with implications that God exists when talking about AiG's views, as they, as you point out, take it as axiomatic.
• Yes, I agree with that, too. In fact, I have since removed my comment. My motivation for it was that Guy started baselessly attacking another editor who has done nothing wrong, and I felt that pointing out would defend the editor. However, I now realise it instead builds even more ground for conflict, which is definitely not going to help in achieving consensus on a compromise. You are not being patronising at all, and it is easy to tell an editor that is trying to give helpful advice apart from an editor who is using 'advices' as a tool for passive aggression (like me in my reply to Guy Macon :)). I will always listen to the former and treat them with respect, even if I don't agree with them. Once again, thanks for your reply and your contribution to AiG's talk page discussion, which looks increasingly likely to end up with a satisfactory consensus.^Ol^Ja 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstone James, thank you for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were made. Thank you also for removing your earlier comment, though I have a request. I don't like removing comments where there are already responses as it leaves a discussion that makes less sense to a reader. So, I suggest / ask that you restore the comment and then strike it out. By all means, you could add a comment like "struck to avoid conflict" (or whatever you think is suitable) to make clear that you are not saying that what you posted earlier is wrong, just that you would, on reflection, have preferred not to have posted it. It is your user talk page, so you are free to refactor as you choose, but I think complete removal is not the best idea. In the alternative, you could post a note with a diff to your removal saying that you have removed one of your own comments for whatever reason, but are noting where it was and that it was present when several following posts were made.

• Regarding pings, I don't understand why they sometimes don't work either, but I do have this page watchlisted now.  :)
• Regarding 1H and your modification, I can post a comment at AiG talk. Consensus is building, but trying to declare it quickly (especially by someone who is then in the majority) is an effective way to trigger further conflict / dispute, so I'd take it slowly.
• I have re-read the sentence and you are correct, it says "nature and universal origins" and I have been thinking only of the latter. However, I still see "many" as introducing inaccuracy on the subject of origins. So, I'll reflect further on what might be suitable there. I now see the problem you raise, I just want to find a solution that doesn't introduce a different problem.
• I understand your desire to try to fix lots of things at once, but my WP experience says that when there is push back, separate them into discrete and contained suggestions, even running in parallel. It may take longer but it tends to be more effective. Many of the issues that you have raised are valid areas for discussion and change, but how they are approached has a significant effect as to whether anything changes. I'm suggesting you try a modification of your methods, rather than your goals. A couple of examples:
  • Try DBRD: Having found an issue, start a discussion explaining why you see something as misleading or whatever, and wait a few days. If there's no response, boldly implement your change, pointing to your talk page post in the edit summary, and add a talk page note that you've implemented the change. Hopefully you're met with silence that you can take as acquiescence. If there is discussion, wait to see what emerges – there might be a better solution raised – and participate in the discussion. If theer's no discussion and you are reverted, you can ping the reverter to the thread you have already started and request discussion. No edit warring / conflict, no basis for accusing you of acting unilaterally, and an implicit comment that the reverter would have been wise to discuss rather than reverting.
  • Avoid discussion by edit summary: Look at the jps changes. He was right that "pseudoscientific promotion" is unclear and undesirable (as my talk page discussion showed). You were right that yEc is a religious belief and not a science. Neither of you was recognising / accepting the other person's point. Starting a talk page discussion to discuss a change rather than revert-warring will generally get the other editor to explain / discuss and lead to compromise or to other editors' involvement and the emergence of consensus.
• AiG certainly assume the existence of God, and attributing that assumption to them is fine. Writing in Wikipedia's voice, however, I am not comfortable that taking a God as a given is desirable or appropriate. As I said above, I skipped it as something to come back to, partly as I could see concrete suggestions in other areas that I thought would be productive in advancing the discussion of article content.
• I'm glad we share optimism about the potential for further improvement of the AiG article, EdChem (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there weren't actually any replies to my comment at the time of removal, so I didn't see a problem. 1990'sguy's comment was directed at Guy Macon.

• I agree, but I never declared there was any consensus, anyway. I just said that it seems to be moving in that direction. We'll see where the talk page takes us.
• Yes, the grouping together of nature and universal origins makes any potential phrasing awkward. Maybe split the two apart, saying many natural causes are rejected when it comes to nature and all natural causes are rejected when it comes to universal origins? Let's see what you and the others can come up with.
• The thing is: I was doing exactly what you are describing for a large chunk of the past week. However, when I started a discussion, all the issues I have raised have been dismissed as "not an issue" without any explanation. When I requested an explanation, I was only told that there is no consensus for my proposal, and hence it cannot be implemented. No better solution was proposed, and no issues with my proposal were identified. If you look at the page history, you will see that before the reason/God's Word edit, I wasn't edit-warring at all, and, in fact, made a total of 1/2 revert(s) before that point. My actual edit-warring started when other editors starting re-adding content that is obviously false (that there is a dichotomy between human reason and God's Word according to AiG), and directly contradicted by a number of sources that I had already provided on the talk page by that point; by that time, I was already getting desperate, as all conventional methods of resolving dispute had failed. This also coincided with my reversions of jps's edits, which were made without consensus. I agree that discussion through summary notes is inferior to discussion on talk page, but, for that reason, I have started a discussion on every change that I have proposed. I didn't start a discussion on jps's edits because the onus was on them to do so and because I was already very, very tired of starting discussions. I didn't recognise the gist of jps's edit because it was not stated. I apologise for being defensive, but I am just describing how I see the situation. I have genuinely first tried five or more recommended methods of approach (discussion, compromise proposal, adaptive editing, appnoting, dispute resolution noticeboard) many times over, but every single one of them led to the same reaction from disagreeing editors: no consensus = no change.
• Can you please quote a passage where Wikipedia's voice implies God's existence? I don't really understand what specifically you are referring to. ^Ol^Ja 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought you might edit with more care after a week long block, I have removed your qualification on the Answers in Genesis article as it is not supported by the source please, feel free to add back with a suitable source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Are these good sources, in your opinion? [7] [8]. "Creation science is real science".^Ol^Ja 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary sources so not ideal. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: You are not going to find a reliable secondary source which explicitly says that AiG promote creation science because this statement is so specific. However, if it is clear that AiG promote creation science on their website/if the explicitly say that themselves, we are definitely safe in saying that AiG promote creation science. AiG's website is a reliable source for what AiG believe. Furthermore, the fact that creation science is promoted by AiG is stated all over the article, so if you remove my statement, you should also remove every other similar statement in the article (there are lots of them!). Do you reckon it's fine if I restore my edit with the link that I gave you as reference?^Ol^Ja 19:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better than nothing I suppose. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But please format the source correctly you can find help here WP:REFB we don't use bare urls for sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll do that in a minute.^Ol^Ja 20:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest you use the talk page to gain any consensus for your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, which was given to me by at least a bazillion users at this point, but I think I already got it... a loooong time ago.^Ol^Ja 21:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you haven't "got it" - it is disruptive to use extended edit summaries in place of discussion on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, reverting my own edit and using an edit summary note to explain the decision is clearly disruptive. Thanks, Theroadislong. I'll never self-revert or use edit summaries ever again👍 ^Ol^Ja 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on literal interpretations of Genesis, but it itself is not an interpretation. See Young Earth creationism. jps (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mutually exclusive and only backs up my point. The idea of Christian God is based on the Bible. The idea of God is also part of the Bible. Furthermore, If YEC is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, it doesn't make sense to put YEC first. It's like saying "I love cats and animals". Also, your version is awkwardly phrased. You say "as an alternative". Alternative to what? And "results of scientific investigation" sounds better to me than "scientific investigations" as it makes a more general statement. Finally, consider working from an edit and improving it rather than reverting it altogether.^Ol^Ja 01:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Not mutually exclusive? What are you talking about? Your edit summary claimed that YEC was an interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It is not. Now you are saying that we should put the general case before the specific? But the point is that AiG is most well-known as a promoter of YEC. It bases this promotion on a belief in a literal Genesis. See how easy it is to say the first thing before the other?

Part of the issue seems to be that you cannot let go of your own arrogant belief that you and you alone know how to edit this article. Take a breath and try to see that we're all on the same side here, but your intransigence makes it difficult to collaborate with you.

jps (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Is it that hard to understand? YEC is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. It also is itself a literal interpretation of Genesis. What's not clear? I even gave you an example. I think this issue is quite straightforward. I've made another small edit which puts YEC first but also avoids grammatical mistakes/ambiguities.

I do not have that belief at all. What I do have, though, is the belief that I am one of the few editors who does not apply double standards, but this position is overwhelmingly justifiable. If anything, it's not even you that I have a problem with; I used to edit like you before my first block. It's the other editors that are blatantly discriminating against me that I am particularly frustrated with.^Ol^Ja 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YEC is not a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is a claim about the age of the Earth vis-a-vis creationism. See Young Earth creationism where this is explained in exquisite detail. In any case, the edit you just made was fine, but you've got to learn to collaborate and discuss if you are going to avoid getting into hot water. jps (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Well, the YEC article only seems to confirm that YEC is indeed biblically literal. Here is a quote that proves this definitively: "biblically literal young Earth". I would personally still prefer my first version, but the current version doesn't have any obvious mistakes and is factually accurate, so I am fine. Although telling me to learn to collaborate is a bit hypocritical. I mean: both of us know that the two of us tried to collaborate at the start, right? So what's the problem? And bear in mind that it's always the editor who makes an edit that needs to justify that edit - I did not need to justify reverting to the status quo. If you had first taken the time to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page, I can assure you we would have gotten to the same conclusion much quicker and without any unnecessary edit-warring. Also, bear in mind that it may sometimes be disruptive to make an edit to something that's just been discussed extensively for a month and eventually agreed upon. I am not blaming you, as you have at least, unlike practically every other editor on the page, managed to accept a compromise, but I am just letting you know.^Ol^Ja 17:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. Your high-handedness will just get you into more trouble. You have convinced yourself that it is impossible for you to be wrong. This only will end badly. jps (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying this? Of course I can be wrong. In fact, if you look at AiG's talk page, you will see multiple instances of me admitting problems with some of my proposals. And "high-handedness"? If anything, I am the low-handed party here. I have no power over AiG's page whatsoever. I wasn't even allowed to correct a grammatical mistake without my edit being reverted. I don't see why you have this attitude towards me. We seemed to have finally done a piece of collaborative work that we are both happy with, so why be bitter about it? ^Ol^Ja 21:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bitter. What's happening here is that you are on the defensive and are not seeing that your responses are needlessly provoking negative reactions in people with whom you can perfectly well collaborate. When I tell you that you are being high-handed, that is how it comes across to me. It does not matter if you don't see it that way.

All you need to do is bury the hatchet and move on. A simple, "let's agree to disagree and continue to work together" is fine. Instead, I see compounding defensiveness that is indicative of the kind of responses that eventually get people into trouble. I'm trying to explain to you how your responses come across to me and, judging from your history, I'm not the only one who has a problem with your behavior. Take it for what it is. Either accept it as a critique that I have with which you are free to disagree but that probably indicates a general issue, or ignore it and continue down the path you're going down.

That's really all this is.

jps (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I may come across as aggressive/provocative is that I am extremely frustrated and for pretty obvious reasons, too. If you look at some of Guy Macon's or Roxy the dog's edits or comments, you will see why. I apologise if I came across as such, but I hope you understand. But I disagree that I'm being defensive - I'm just justifying my point of view, which I believe is correct. Although I do agree that arguing about something that we've already resolved is a bit useless - but that applies to you as well.

Honestly, I'm fine with that approach! In fact, we don't even need to disagree - we are both happy with the current version, after all!

P.s. just a remark on your comment about my history: it's always the same people that have a problem with my behaviour, so I wouldn't generalise. Also, I am not sure how much sense I am making, as I've done 10 hours-worth of assignment today and had no sleep, so forgive me if some of my sentences are not coherent.^Ol^Ja 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to get some sleep and perhaps take a breather from Wikipedia. Unlike your assignments, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia we will be here when you get back. jps (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Oldstone James. Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]