User talk:Greenpastures

There is a lot to think about here.Greenpastures (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines[edit]

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn what Myth and Liberal mean in academic contexts.

"Myth" just means any sacred story, the value of which is found in philosophy, theology, or some other ephemeral form (whether or not it is historical). This definition is what lead C. S. Lewis to refer to the story of Jesus as "a myth that is also true."

"Liberal" has a variety of uses, but it is not just a catch-all for "anything besides evangelical fundamentalist Christianity." Even then, the Documentary hypothesis is pretty standard in most seminaries, and most of the Southern Baptist ministers I've known over the years acknowledge it (even if they argue that the ultimate source was an oral tradition started by Moses that was written down after the Babylonian exile). The idea that the oldest Biblical texts assumed anything like their recognizable form occurred during or after the Babylonian captivity is the mainstream academic consensus, period. It's not the "liberal" consensus, it is the consensus.

Finally, an article's text is based on the sources cited in the article. You can't just change the phrase to something that's not supported by the sources cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, your article is not written from a neutral point of view. It is interesting you mention the fundamentalist Christianity. Why would you do that? This, alone, shows your bias. And, by the way, I am not a fundamentalist. However, I am conservative, and you do not present the conservative side of the concept of Noah's Ark. You have an obvious bias. It shows. There are millions upon millions of people who believe there was a historical flood. You are not presenting their side. The word, "myth", does not represent their side. The word is an affront to what they believe. I know what a theological myth is, and a theological myth is not a historical narrative. Your "myth" denies the historicity of the Flood. It is obvious you do not believe in it. It is very very clear. As a matter of fact, you seem to have a hostility. Also, you say the Flood account was written down after the Babylonian exile. Southern Baptists, in general, do not believe this. That is a liberal argument. Southern Baptists, in general, believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You know this, but you do not mention it. Again, this shows your bias. There is no reason whatsoever you cannot change "myth" to "account". This does not change the information from your sources. Please stop being so disrespectful to the conservative view or even the fundamentalist view. There is no reason for it. Greenpastures

June 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Noah's Ark, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a supplement to policy called WP:NOTHERE. Basically, if a user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, we can and do block them. So far, it doesn't look like you're here to build an encyclopedia, it just looks like you're here to push your interpretation into the Noah's Ark article, without regard to what professionally-published mainstream academic sources say.

In other words, you really need to find a different topic to work on if you don't want to be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Noah's Ark. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are controversial and you need to get consensus to include the material in the article. Once the block expires please ensure you use the article talk page to discuss your desired changes prior to restoring them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, your article is not written from a neutral point of view. It is interesting you mention the fundamentalist Christianity. Why would you do that? This, alone, shows your bias. And, by the way, I am not a fundamentalist. However, I am conservative, and you do not present the conservative side of the concept of Noah's Ark. You have an obvious bias. It shows. There are millions upon millions of people who believe there was a historical flood. You are not presenting their side. The word, "myth", does not represent their side. The word is an affront to what they believe. I know what a theological myth is, and a theological myth is not a historical narrative. Your "myth" denies the historicity of the Flood. It is obvious you do not believe in it. It is very very clear. As a matter of fact, you seem to have a hostility. Also, you say the Flood account was written down after the Babylonian exile. Southern Baptists, in general, do not believe this. That is a liberal argument. Southern Baptists, in general, believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. You know this, but you do not mention it. Again, this shows your bias. There is no reason whatsoever you cannot change "myth" to "account". This does not change the information from your sources. Please stop being so disrespectful to the conservative view or even the fundamentalist view. There is no reason for it. Greenpastures

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Noah's Ark. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are just coming off a block for edit warring. You should either try to discuss your issues on the article Talk page, or forget about that article. Soon you will be blocked as a not here to contribute account. Dave Dial (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dial Per WP:EDITWAR, Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down. Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an editor who calls himself Thinker78, did you really think before posting that comment to me? Perhaps you should read some more Wikipedia policies before you making any more edits. There was one editor involved in an edit war, the editor whose Talk page you are commenting on now. And I added a personal note at the bottom of my warning. If you think it was inappropriate, report it to an Admin board. Dave Dial (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take some sips of water, count to ten, inhale... exhale... inhale... exhale... Sorry, but I checked the Noah's Ark article history and I saw that you were involved in the war. A war is not a one man's affair. Per WP:EDITWAR, An edit war[...] occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. It looks to me that certainly there was at least a single instance of repeated override. I don't know why you ask me to take this to an Admin board. It is overkill don't you think? Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what does your edit summary "weren't you blocked" mean?[edit]

Were you confused? Doug Weller talk 07:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question. I did not think it was hard to understand. I will try to ask another way. Were you, at one time, blocked?

The only entry on Doug's block log was an accident several years ago that lasted for up to 60 seconds. So not really. That wouldn't discredit him, either.

Having previously been blocked does not discredit one. Repeating the action that lead to the last block almost immediately after getting out of said block is a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Was that what your comment was about? Did you not read what it said? "with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: on Elizabeth Gilbert after warning by Dougweller)" In other words, the block was for someone violating our BlP policy after I warned them, which is why it was undone with the explanation "wrong target". You really need to read things first. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral, and bullying...[edit]

Hello, Greenpastures. You have new messages at WP:HD.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

June 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I think it would be useful if you added the article where the edit warring happened. Thinker78 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious from the very short contribution history - Noah's Ark. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments[edit]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button 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. Thinker78 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gospel has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gospel was changed by Greenpastures (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950284 on 2018-10-22T04:18:51+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gospel 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Gospel. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia 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:Gospel are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal verification[edit]

I thought the public platforms were for personal points of view to share with others for discussion. , Who's to say my point of view is wrong or incorrect Joe CORDER 502 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]