User talk:Oldstone James

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]

Editathon Invitation  Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington    This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations..    When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm    Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH.    Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsettwikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK. Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)

Meetup Invitation  Hi Oldstone James, You are cordially invited to an opportunity   to meet active Wikimedians in and around London face-to-face.    Description: Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome.    When? Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm.    Where? Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP.     Further details and check in: London 91 Hope to see you there, Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to 2014–15 Arsenal F.C. season, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[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]

Hey, Oldstone James, if you could be so kind, can you toss in a small edit summary when you edit? that would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. plus it's a simple form of WP:netiquette /paying respect to others.... --Wuerzele (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images used under a claim of fair use are not permitted anywhere other than articles for any reason. Please see WP:NFCC#9. Please notice how File:FC Southampton.svg is not licensed - it is a copyrighted logo. It can be used only in articles and then only where its use has a specific rationale explaining why it is permitted. --B (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014–15 Southampton F.C. season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: The main priority in Wikipedia is reliability, and, by not following source listed as reference, reliability is not kept.

P.S. Btw, if ur doing that whole thing because of that edit I made about Arsenal in the 2014-15 Premier League article (Arsenal r getting relegated anyways cos they're shit), I was actually joking, I actually like Arsenal ^Ol^Ja 10:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that! Sorry for that, my bad. ^Ol^Ja 10:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb cf t has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football club form has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Template:2014–15 Premier League table, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have seen your recent edits and feel I have to explain a few things.

Sandboxes are for editing and testcases are to see if it works, you should not edit a template in testcases.

If you have a existing template you want to modify, then you can create a sandbox for that template, copy and paste content from main template and then test edit in the sandbox. After that you can compare the current "real" template with your version in the sandbox on a "testcases" page. As a example the template I created Template:Livescores editnotice was tested for some changes at Template:Livescores editnotice/sandbox and then the result was compared at Template:Livescores editnotice/testcases before being rolled out for use.

You should not create subpages of template if the template should not exist (all pages without parents should be speedy deleted) and you should not add your test to sandbox or testcase of another template.

If you want to try new templates it is best to use own personal sandboxes. For example when I created templates I used User:Qed237/sandbox2 for the implementation and I called and tested how they looked at User:Qed237/sandbox.

I will give you some time to blank and ask pages that should not exist to be deleted on your own, otherwise I will clear up and your work risk being lost.

If you have any questions I will try and help. QED237 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Ewofjkwejfoie/testcases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. QED237 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to experiment with template code then please use a sandbox; do not use mainspace for your tests. GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have totally mised the point. The Y is for when teams can only reach "blue" and MAY qualify. Now that it is sure that third means qualifying and is green, the Y should not be used. Believe me, I developed the module. Now you have made 4 exact same edits and not attempted to talk so you will be reported. Qed237 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: Man sorry, my bad. So sorry. We can put an X though still. ^Ol^Ja 23:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-revert (remove) and I will remove the report. Lets discuss. Qed237 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: Awright then. Will now be done.

Okay now we can talk. As I said above, now teams has either advanced or been eliminated, because there is no "uncertainty" for the third place anymore. For that reason Y is no longer needed. Do you have a different opinion? Qed237 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: No, I got it now. Because I thought the Y indicated a team that could finish 3rd or lower, regardless to whether 3rd place guaranteed a knockout stage qualification or not. You explained nicely where I got it wrong though. Now I see, there is no necessity for any letter.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion has started above, I removed the report at the edit warring notiveboard to discuss. Qed237 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You can not call other editors for haters and prickhead Qed237 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not imply that other editors are stupid. SLBedit (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Darkwind (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jackson Martínez, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: ). Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Jackson Martínez while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wording is standard - see for example Steve Bruce which is a FA! Pep Guardiola and your version of Brendan Rogers are the incorrect exception. Northern Ireland should not be piped per WP:OVERLINK. As for manager twice I have changed the first instance to 'coach'. GiantSnowman 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015–16 La Liga. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would appreciate if you fix your signature to end the italics so that everything other editor write after your talkpage posts wont be in italics. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: Ah, I am actually so not bothered - but sorry if it causes inconvenience and I might later change it. Didn't notice it till now.^Ol^Ja 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you in my team, I see you likewise not like the Wikipedia policy. True ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiulian25: I am not a huge fan of Qed237's contributions to Wikipedia, but that's about it. No problem with Wikipedia policy. ^Ol^Ja 14:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Qed237. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Qed237 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the world is unlucky to have you in it is in no way acceptable, and one more time and I will have you reported. Qed237 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237:, this is EXACTLY the reason why I said, "notice how I said, "if so" ". A bit silly from you, isn't it? ^Ol^Ja 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Your recent editing history at Creationism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: It's funny because it's the other editors who are edit-warring - not me. If you look at my edits, I haven't reverted the same edit more than twice, and, according to the Wikipedia policy on edit-warring, at least three edits are sufficient. On the other hand, any edit that I make - no matter whether right or wrong - gets reverted.^Ol^Ja 22:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the case that it's only edit warring if you revert more than 3 times. That's just the bright line of when you get blocked, but reverting multiple times is still edit warring even if you don't pass that threshold. I happen to come by to leave this very message about a different article, Answers in Genesis, where you added the same content twice. These warnings are just that -- warnings so you know for the future that repeatedly making the same edit isn't a good idea. Please abide by the WP:BRD process. If you make an edit that people disagree when, the burden is on you to make the case on the talk page and seek consensus for the change. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring edits can also be considered edit warring (especially if more than one editor reverts). I would like to remind that these are difficult to edit articles, especially their lead. Contentious topics have been discussed again and again on their talk pages and a lot of the wording was worked through consensus. I recommend to not be in a hurry, to discuss it and as necessary just move on or edit other articles and not get discouraged. —PaleoNeonate – 00:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I see. However, I wasn't even restoring edits - all my edits were different, each time with a different approach. I will, nevertheless, try to refrain from edit-warring as much as possible and have already initiated a discussion at the talk page. I definitely won't move on, though, until the issue is resolved. The problem is just too evident and too (seemingly) easy to solve for me to move on.^Ol^Ja 00:14, 6 November 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]

Your recent editing history at Answers in Genesis‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oldstone James, while I strongly support your fight for greater neutrality on Wikipedia's creationism articles, I recommend that you do not edit war on those articles. There are several fanatic editors who will try to get you blocked or banned because you are going against the status quo, and they're unwilling to make any edit that even appears to slightly not favor evolution as undisputed and observable fact. I've seen very experienced editors get banned or blocked due to one incident or edit war, and I don't want to see it happen to yet another decent editor. I also recommend finding an alternative to the word "generally" which clearly does not violate WP:WEASEL. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: Thank you for showing respect. I agree that I shouldn't edit-war, and I will try to stop reverting other users' edits. In this case, however, I felt the revert was an open act of vandalism, as the summary read "No way. Nope". I agree that "generally" is not the best word to use, and, in fact, it may not even be appropriate, but no one has yet stated anything about it on the talk page, and so they have no right of reverting my edit, which, in turn, is the result of a reached consensus on the talk page. The reason I'm so stubborn is because I sincerely don't understand in what way my version of the sentence is worse than the current version, as it doesn't really change the meaning of the sentence in any way - just removes the obvious bias. I want to stress that I am not doing it because I believe in creationism. Instead, I am a firm atheist, who has no doubt about mainstream science, including evolution. I am doing it because I believe that Wikipedia is a source of facts - not opinions. Once again, I appreciate your desire to help me. ^Ol^Ja 00:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: This is of course misrepresentation (the alleged fanatics are on the side of policy and their history usually demonstrate they're here for the encyclopedia in general, not foo-fighting, which is unfortunately part of the deal). This also discusses and blames other editors, which is discouraged. —PaleoNeonate – 19:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Unfortunately, those editors don't appear to care about explaining the policy. As Oldstone James clearly stated, he doesn't even support YEC, and he's an atheist (and I know he's not the first such person). Yet, he appears legitimately confused, and it seems to me that at least some of the other editors are treating him poorly, like a vandal YEC POV-pusher. If multiple people who aren't even creationists have a problem with the wording in many YEC articles, then there's a problem, and it's not those people trying to change the wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a couple of comments from me, which might help (and no opinion on the actual content disagreement). The revert supported by only "No way. Nope" as an edit summary (which I agree is not as helpful as it could be) would definitely not be considered vandalism by Wikipedia's use of the term (described at WP:Vandalism). And regarding "no one has yet stated anything about it on the talk page, and so they have no right of reverting my edit" is not the way Wikipedia works - anyone has the right to revert an edit without having to first comment on the talk page, and the onus is then on the original editor to gain a talk page consensus before reinstating the edit - and you also need a clear consensus, which I honestly don't think you had at the time. Anyway, I see a genuine intent to help, but you got caught in not fully understanding some Wikipedia policies while editing a controversial topic. Hope this is of some help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for trying to help.

As for the first part, I know it wouldn't, but the point is that it was clearly a sign of hostility and reluctance to try resolving the problem.

For the second part, I am aware of that, which is what led me to first discuss the matter on the talk page. After having reached some consensus, I went on to submit my edit. However, my edit was being reverted - and that was done by users who deliberately avoided any discussion and gave no reasons for their edits. The burden was on them, as I understood, to reach another consensus of reverting my edit, which in turn (my edit) was a consensus itself. It may not have been a clear one, but it was the only one yet. No one else bothered to alter it in any way (apart from one user who wasn't even involved in the edit war).

What I do not understand still is why it was me that got blocked: I was only editing on the behalf of a consensus; the other editors were reverting my edits on the behalf of themselves. So why was it me and not them? And, clearly, they should have at least given me another warning, since the previous warning did have me act (I initiated a discussion and then try to reach out to the users who reverted my edits)?

Thanks for understanding my intent. I clearly did get caught in a misunderstanding of the policies, as even my unblock request was declined. ^Ol^Ja 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was only editing on the behalf of a consensus; the other editors were reverting my edits on the behalf of themselves. Where was this consensus clearly established? When other editors revert it's usually not a sign of consensus. It's also the other way around: if our changes are reverted we should open a discussion and justify them (i.e. WP:BRD, WP:ONUS), not expect that others waste a lot of time justifying themselves (other than that a clear edit summary is indeed considered useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: The consensus was established on the talk page. Only two editors were reverting my edit - and, as I see, they knew each other. And yes, I did open a discussion and justify my edits.^Ol^Ja 22:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to be redundant to the great deal of text above (and removed), but resuming the same edit war right after coming off the edit warring block is not a good idea. Including the text "this is not an edit war" doesn't change the fact that it is. As many people have already said, use the talk page to find consensus for the changes before just reinserting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: What you said scares me a lot, as I really have no intent of any conflict. I only edited the text to see if it gets reverted, and if it would, which it did, I would start a discussion on the talk page, which I did. Thanks for letting me know, though.^Ol^Ja 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if you make an edit to a page and people object to it, then in most cases you shouldn't try to make the edit again until a consensus has emerged on the talk page (or until you've tried to discuss on the talk page but received no response after a period of time). It's true that it's not always crystal clear, as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines generally leave some gray area and room for interpretation, but if blocked for edit warring, restoring some of the same text that led to that block (if I have my chronology right) is just going to be seen as a continuation of the same edit war. Especially on articles about contentious subjects, it's better to err on the side of caution (and/or on the side of the status quo version, which is typically the product of many such discussions to begin with). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: The thing is: I didn't restore the same edit. The edit that I was restoring was reverted by only one editor, so I thought, maybe, if I restored it again, other editors would agree. They didn't, so I started a discussion. Anyway, I will take your suggestion into account.^Ol^Ja 20:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit note made no sense; it is not about "adding content". Please join the discussion about the content and please be wary of behavior that could be perceived as turning Wikipedia into a battleground.Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I am not turning WIkipedia into a battleground. I genuinely disagree with your edit on the page, which I happened to have stumbled across. I only just now recognised you. Your edit, while making the tone more encyclopedic, loses important information and alters the meaning of the sentence.^Ol^Ja 22:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are. It is showable with diffs. You will do as you like, but as I noted below, you are heading for a topic ban. If that is what you want, please continue as you have been doing. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are heading directly for a topic ban on all topics related to religion. This is your second edit note in a row (now this one) that misrepresents things. You have said nothing at the talk page.

Consider your next steps carefully.

Your recent editing history at Samson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Actually, it's your choice. I wasn't going to report you, but this is now getting out of hand. You won't stop edit-warring, something which I already learnt is not the best thing to do even if you are doing whatever you are in good faith.^Ol^Ja 23:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite tell if you really don't understand Wikipedia or are just trolling. You have not written a single thing at Talk:Samson to discuss the content, but you are generating all this drama.

When there are disagreements, we talk them through. This is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Surprisingly, you failed to do so ("talk them through"). Yes, I definitely am trolling, because filing a report on you would put me in risk of being topic-banned, but I'll do it, anyways, because what do trolls not do to get people irritated these days, right? Look, I genuinely think these particular edits that you made were harmful to Wikipedia - for the reasons I explained. Not writing a single thing on the talk page, as I have already learnt, does not prevent you from having unconstructive editors blocked; furthermore, I may not have written anything on Talk:Samson, but another user, User:Dilidor, has. If I got blocked last time I reported you, there is no reason you shouldn't this time. That said, I don't want you to get you blocked - I want you to stop changing content without having reached consensus on the talk page, something I have been punished for; unfortunately, you don't seem to have any interest in that, so reporting on you seems to be the only solution. Prove me wrong. If you undo your edit, I am removing the report right now.^Ol^Ja 00:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand how WP works. We don't make little gangs and edit war to "win". You still have not participated at the talk page to discuss the content that Dilidor added (and that Dilidor should have opened a discussion about per BRD), with respect to how well the content complies with the policies and guidelines.

What we do here, is not about what people "like" and it is not about "winning". I shudder at your imagined version of how this community works. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 11 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. I hope I'm not interfering but I'm trying to understand what's going on. You are being accused of edit-warring because you have made some relatively minor changes to various articles on religion. I'm an agnostic so I have no need to prove either that God does exist or that God doesn't exist. I just regard it as something unknown and unknowable. I think your critics are atheist fundamentalists who have a strong need to "prove" that God doesn't exist. Atheist fundamentalism is just as much a religion as Christian fundamentalism because its adherents have an unshakeable faith that they are right. Atheist fundamentalism seems to be the official policy of Wikipedia, just as Christian fundamentalism is the official policy of Conservapedia. Do you think my analysis is correct? Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) Note: I am not answering for Oldstone James who I hope will also comment. Edit warring and POV editing are technically different things. The issue was restoring edits without consensus, then frivolously reporting another editor. Not assuming that something exists because there is no evidence is not religion. Finally, reporting about pseudoscience and science denial has nothing to do with proving that deities don't exist (or with atheism)... All editors have their beliefs (I'm personally currently agnostic) but we should still nonetheless work through consensus and using reliable sources. Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Promotion (not only religious) is a problem that exists on Wikipedia but which is actively controlled as possible. I'm not saying that James was soapboxing, however, I'm mentioning this because you are saying that we are here to promote a claimed fundamentalist religion. —PaleoNeonate – 03:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away. I am trying to talk to Oldstone James. Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: If you aren't answering for me then why are you on my talk page answering a question addressed to me? Go away.^Ol^Ja 13:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Synthetic Woolly Mammoth: <Don't mind PaleoNeonate. It's not the first time they are harassing me.> I don't quite agree with your analysis. First of all, my edits are mostly aimed at neutrality: for example, for my edits on Answers in Genesis, I was accused of "pushing pseudoscience", being a "blatant POV creationist", and so on. So I don't think I am promoting atheist fundamentalism, and I would like to know what made you think that way. Incidentally, I am a convinced atheist. I, unlike Christians, don't have blind faith as the only reason for my worldview. My opinions are shaped by reason and evidence. It is important to note that atheists don't claim to know, in its strictest definition, that God doesn't exist, because one can't be certain of absolutely anything in this world - not even that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, that you weren't abducted by aliens and returned to Earth with erased memory, etc. We just claim to be as certain that any characterised God - or afterlife - doesn't exist as that, say, Santa Clause doesn't.^Ol^Ja 13:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply how Wikipedia works. I also like helping and explaining how it works. This harrassment accusation appears unfounded, and I could actually report you for this personal attack (WP:PA). On the other hand, I also respect requests to no longer participate on a personal talk page (also part of policies). Please don't expect any help from me in the future, but I'll reconsider on request. If you remember, I actually argued against a block at your first frivolous edit war report, albeit unsuccessfully. Logs and history are easy to consult to justify or dismiss claims. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oldstone James. Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. I support your efforts to improve neutrality. I make a distinction between atheists in general (like you) and atheist fundamentalists, like some of the people who are criticising you. Does this clarify the matter? Synthetic Woolly Mammoth (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Synthetic Woolly Mammoth: Oh, alright. I agree. That is especially true of Wikipedia, where your beliefs, no matter how true or, conversely, ridiculous, should have no effect on your editing. However, some editors just seem to have the need to prove a point. In this regard, I agree with you.^Ol^Ja 20:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

2601:401:502:320A:BD38:3DAE:7DF4:C58B (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]