Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xan81 (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 31 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Xan81, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback on User talk:Rezonansowy

--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Atheism are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Atheism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Rhododendrites (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of discussions happening on that talk page - this is called "scientific inquiry". I am posing a neutral point. You aren't a moderator. This is open-source.

What I edited on the talk page was an argument against generalizing anyone 'irreligious' as 'atheist' - atheism is unscientific; irreligion isn't.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Atheism. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages'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, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Rhododendrites (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I am now certain that you are an atheist defending itself like a Witness, let me be clear: That is a talk page. YOU are causing the conflict and orchestrating the "edit war" because you realize that there's no science in your religion (atheism).

If you would like me to "take it elsewhere," then how about showing me where I can explain myself before I start reporting you.

And obviously consensus has not been reached, there's a big problem with "atheism" - it is NOT SCIENTIFIC as the research is yet unfinished.

Unless you have sources (as the 'rules' require).

You're presenting an argument about the subject of atheism rather than talking about the article in particular. If you want to challenge specific text in the article, by all means bring it up and point people to a source that backs up your opinion. The reverts have nothing to do with the merit of your arguments or the desire to censor your opinions. The issue is, the article and the talk page get a lot of people who want to argue about this or that (it's a subject that evokes passion and/or riles people up after all), and if nobody enforces WP:NOTAFORUM it just descends into, well, a forum. And that's not good. I don't mean any offense or dismissal. It's just an appropriateness for the venue thing. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: Misplaced Pages is not in the business of saying atheism or theism is right or wrong and nobody on Misplaced Pages is putting their own original ideas on the article. If it says somewhere that "atheism is scientific," it will almost certainly (and by policy is supposed to) be accompanied by a source. If you take issue with it, offer a different source. No original research means you can argue the truth until you're blue in the face but if you aren't pulling from reliable secondary sources it's completely irrelevant as far as WP is concerned. My advice: go through the article, find specific passages you disagree with; if they don't have a source, ask for one, and if one isn't provided you have justification for removing it. If it does have a source, find one that makes your own point and then bring it to the talk page. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And my point is exactly that: until 'atheism' becomes scientific, there can be no 'right' or 'wrong'. Or am I misunderstanding scientific inquiry? Seriously, guy - what "source" could I cite as to what triggered the expansion of the universe? I don't think you know, either. Whatever; I'll keep arguing it on the battlefields of social networking and face-to-face. Don't try to sell something that you don't understand, man. Xan81 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But there are sources in which people do try to explain it and make those kinds of claims. There are also sources that say it's impossible to know, and in fact some of those are cited throughout Misplaced Pages. I'm not trying to "sell you" some idea about the beginning of the universe. I'm not trying to "sell you" on anything related to atheism.

Let me try to explain this way. Let's say you know that a certain species of bird migrates to Cuba during the winter, but the authoritative books and peer reviewed articles say that the bird only migrates to Mexico or otherwise says nothing about their migration at all. It doesn't matter if/that their migration to Cuba is true, it doesn't matter why it's true, how you know, and it doesn't matter how one can even know about bird migration. All that matters is that's what it says in the reliable secondary sources. Without sources to the contrary, Misplaced Pages is completely and entirely indifferent. Substantive, potentially controversial arguments like that which you are presenting (as well as just about any argument for or against atheism), without sources to accompany your position, simply have no place here. It's not personal, it's not some conspiracy of Wikipedian atheists. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Atheism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)}

Why can't you propose a counter-argument or support for your own? Have YOU cited anything? Or are you still just defending your religion? And yes, this "discussion" is being published externally and archived for a future complaint.

You are harming the credibility of Misplaced Pages...