User

Talk

Contributions

Userboxes

Email

Links

sandboxes

Edit Count

KSci ^(talk) 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ksci, hope you are doing well. I noticed that you got reverted a few times today by a few editors. Its ok though. I think what may have caused much of the reaction, was that you made quite a few sections on the talk page that made it look like you wanted to change many things in the article. Most of what you wanted were very small changes but by you creating sections for every single one of them (instead of dealing with them in a one or two sections), it gives the impression that you wanted to make major changes. Not all the editors have the patience to read through what you wrote so it may be helpful to go to the point when making small but significant changes to any article.

One thing I would suggest would be to deal with one issue at a time rather than trying to change too many things at the same time - especially since you are new and need to establish some record for reliable and reasonable edits. Editors will notice your style and eventually will begin to trust your edits and give you more freedom to make more significant and daring edits. Right now you are new editor and the amounts of "attempts" of edits you have made + the number of reverts you have received makes it seem like you may be engaging in edit war. Please click on that wikilink and read about that. I know you are not edit warring, but when many of the edits get reverted other editors will notice and get involved and think that you may be edit warring with other editors. You don't want that to happen. Patience is a good thing to have as an editor.

If you make an edit and someone makes a revert, wait and settle it on the talk page. Then proceed.

The "criticism of atheism" page is partly volatile because it is a criticism page of a worldview that some hold personally so some of the reverts may be due to that. However, I think that you can achieve some of the edits you wanted such as the modification of Richard Dawkins by adding a criticism of Dawkins belief right after that sentence to show a counter-point to what he says. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I greatly appreciate your advice. I've only reverted a reverted a revert on maybe 2-3 occasions with clear-cut cases and then only to see if I was dealing with reason or reaction. It seems pointless to try. I've never had more than one in 24 hours, so the 3RR shouldn't be an issue. Here are some of the key take-aways I valued from comments. This is valuable stuff to know.

- you made quite a few sections on the talk page that made it look like you wanted to change many things in the article Okay, I see. Well I do want to make many changes, but honest changes to fix errors, misstatements, and other irregularities to make the article more factual. I think it was a mistake to "be bold" on Jmc's advice. It didn't go over well.

The talk page stuff isn't going to scroll off anytime soon as few people are proposing changes, but quite a few are standing guard, apparently loaded for bear.

- Editors will notice your style and eventually will begin to trust your edits and give you more freedom to make more significant and daring edits. Being new I didn't want to dive into multiple topics, but it appears that this may be the best approach.

- When many of the edits get reverted other editors will notice and get involved and think that you may be edit warring with other editors. I see that makes sense. Valuable information. I'm not interested in conflict. I won't play that game, period.

- One thing I would suggest would be to deal with one issue at a time. Hmm, the strategy I was taking was to wear down the opposition by putting every overturned change up for discussion. So far, the opposition has proven lazy. Reverts are a cheap easy click, but arguing a case isn't.

- I think that you can achieve some of the edits you wanted such as the modification of Richard Dawkins by adding a criticism of Dawkins belief right after that sentence to show a counter-point to what he says. That seems like a useful bit of knowledge - for the future time. I don't want the confrontation and my experience is that Dawkins can be an explosive topic.

Thanks, I was beginning to think I was wasting my time, but maybe not.

KSci (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ramos1990 I can understand reverts made for a reason by someone who is interested in discussion, but I'm starting to feel harassed by one editor who reverts all my edits blindly and doesn't show up for discussion of his reverts. What is the best way to respond without creating a problem? Everyone else is wonderful and I am happy to get input from from someone who makes a revert for a reason they'd like to discuss, but reverts by a non-participating party who makes up his own rules seem to violate WP policy.

Help.

KSci (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KSci, I added a contrast/critique on the Dawkin's point you wanted to remove from the article. It already was there in another section so I re-inserted it there. This should balance out what Dawkins said. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ramos1990, I see Dawkins as a bit too sensitive a topic for me to challenge right now. Message of no-comment on the revert question received.

Thanks for your input. :)

KSci (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Sometimes removal of some content is warranted, but other times you can avoid conflict with other editors by just inserting a source that does a critique to nullify what another source (e.g. Dawkins) says. It is a good strategy and it promotes neutrality. Criticism pages are certainly tricky and usually they are quite messy since "criticism" is a relative term. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KSci (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Apologeticus, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donner60, I thought I removed the letter 'a' at the beginning of the article. You were right to reject the edits, I'm shocked because I didn't even read past the lead. I only went to the page looking for citations for another article. Is it possible that I saved an older page and overwrote the article? Thank you for being on top of the situation and proactive.

Addition: I went back to see if I could figure out what happened and was successful. I opened the first history page from the articles creation, came back the page later. Not realizing it wasn't the original I edit to fix the 'a' and saved.

00:56, 13 June 2004‎ Itai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,749 bytes) (+1,749)‎ . . (creation: Tertullian's most famous 

KSci (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your explanation is understandable. I have seen this before. Under the circumstances, I am striking the original message. 03:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I create and navigate to additional sandboxes to develop multiple new text segments?

KSci (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The easiest way is to create them as sub-pages of your user page: User:KSci/sandbox2, User:KSci/sandbox3, User:KSci/sandbox4 and so on. Or name them according to the topic you're writing about: User:KSci/Presumption of atheism, User:KSci/John Doe, User:KSci/Acme, Inc. and so on. Huon (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Diagnoses of senility by nonprofessionals. The use of There is a God has been rejected as a wp:reliable source. Jim1138 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim, thanks for your input. Can you point me to this official decision about Flew's book was made. Nobody to my knowledge has done more than speculate on Flew's state of mind. From his numerous written statements and interviews, senility would not appear to be a viable diagnosis.

One reason for removing this material is that much of it is back and forth bickering by hearsay sources, some of which is contradicted by the sources cites to support the claim. It is literally impossible to draw a conclusion about who - other than Flew who was explicit about his deism - knew his state of mind and conveyed more than hearsay about his actual positions.

Thanks again for your input.

KSci (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I began by reading the article and trying to verify each source while understanding the controversy. What I found was a lot of material that was unverifiable and the controversy doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't have a dog in this game, but but I think this article should provide a coherent verifiable set of circumstances, which it doesn't. I propose that all the unverifiable material relating to this controversy be removed (along with the rebuttals), which ultimately removes the entire controversy (which exceeds the size of the remainder of the article). See the problem?

KSci (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link is the first link under the Antony Flew section header. It's not an "official decision" Nothing much on Wikipedia is "official". If you disagree, I would suggest you open an WP:RFC on talk:Antony Flew. Add a reference to any pertinent archive. Please use wp:Notifications Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't copy copyright content onto this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. To do so is a copyright violation. Please do your amendments in an external editor or before you save the page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KSci ^(talk) 01:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)KSci ^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Alvin Plantinga's free will defense page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed

KSci ^(talk) 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that Twinkle glitched when you made the AfD for this article. I manually went and fixed the header. Hopefully I didn't miss anything that should be on it. Feinoha ^Talk 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated! I'll take a look.

KSci ^(talk) 03:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I procedurally closed the Articles for Deletion discussion on Polemic, after you changed your position from delete to merge and after the only other deletion supporter changed his position to keep. Once the nominator has withdrawn his deletion position and there are no other supporters of deletion present, an AfD may properly be closed early under the withdrawal clause of Article for Deletion procedure. If you wish to discuss merging the article with another article, you may pursue a WP:MERGE discussion. Personally, I would advise against it. Support for keeping Polemic as a separate article appears strong and you are unlikely to prevail. You may try if you wish, but I think you would be wasting your time. In any event, unless you intend to change your position back to delete, the deletion discussion should remain closed. AfD is not the correct forum to discuss merging the article. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Safiel, isn't it usual to close an AfD only after permitting at least a week for interested parties to respond? Also, the premature close prevented me from saving text I composed describing why the input provided was not in compliance with WP policy.

KSci ^(talk) 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just came across the AfD for agnostic theism and thought I'd offer some unsolicited advice: while the thoroughness of your responses to people is admirable, you're running into what some will perceive to be WP:BLUDGEON territory, and in general once the text gets to a point, it's hard to get new voices to join. (i.e. TL;DR). For whatever that's worth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Thanks for the heads up. Your advice is much appreciated and has already been taken. KSci ^(talk) 01:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, KSci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, KSci. 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[reply]