User talk:Neuronautical

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Truth. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand - how can I help change that page from starting the encyclopedic entry for Truth from a religious declaration to an actual truthful statement? The irony is ridiculous! Neuronautical (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

I agree completely with the change you attempted to introduce at Historicity of Jesus. What you said in your Edit summary is obviously correct. However, I have tried to do the same myself, and have also been squashed by the self appointed owners of that article. My recommendation is to simply accept that there are some corners of Wikipedia where the rules don't apply, or maybe a very select, small subset of them do. It's sad that those who want to believe in Jesus seem so un-Christian in their approach to sensible and objective discussion, but it's the way things are here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that page is prone to vandalism with editors using no reliable sources to push fringe theories or to distort what the sources say. Numerous editors there are not religious and/or certainly not Christian so that argument goes out the window immediately. The problem is that no reliable sources claim non-fringe status on the theory and indeed the sources that are available even from non-religious scholars like Ehrman and Casey verify consensus on historicity of Jesus and fringe status of Christ myth theory simultaneously. So do pretty much all Jewish scholars and most other non-Christian scholars, which of course don't need Jesus either. The fact that mythicist sources (e.g Richard Carrier, Robert Price, etc) themselves admit fringe status reinforces the other sources.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a convoluted post. And full of generalisations. I see a lot of that in relation to that article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RationalWiki articles related to the "Question of the historicity of Jesus" are perfect for presenting how Wikipedia goes off the rails and falls flat on its face and then is unable to "right the ship" when the modern consensus is malformed and thus no longer citable as reliable. Something Wikipedia never expected to ever occur and thus is unable to deal with. For more info see User talk:Doric Loon#Critics of the Historicity_of_Jesus --2db (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Historicity of Jesus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was it not constructive? My edits were to better match the reality of the source that was cited. Broad sweeping generalizing claims like "virtually all scholars agree" is as silly as when a History Channel show labels someone an "expert" or "scientist" in general without any indication as to their credentials or background. What the sources actually mean is that "a specific set of Christian Biblical historians and scholars agree." I didn't even get that specific! Just changed it to "Some historians" instead of "virtually all scholars". I also added that archaeologists have found no evidence to support the Historicity of Jesus, which is true. So, were my contributions genuinely not constructive, do you think? Or are there some gatekeepers on that entry that continue to shout down and stomp out anything that doesn't fit their false narrative which has no place in an encyclopedia? Neuronautical (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to my talk page from back in 2010, I was warned about "vandalism" to the Truth entry because at that time it opened with and largely was composed of a huge chunk about Jesus Christ being the One and Only TRUTH, the Light, and the Way and any other ideas about Truth were erroneous. I changed that and deleted most of that chunk, and they were reverted and I was flagged for "vandalism." Same thing here. Neuronautical (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Historicity of Jesus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! How on earth was it disruptive? The whole entry is about the question of the Historicity of Jesus, and you and others have railroaded it to become a mockery! Neuronautical (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking your personal opinions into the article like that is plainly a violation of WP:NOR and is indeed disruptive editing. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entries you made were WP:FRINGE scholars and psudoschoalrship. The article is about mainstream scholarly views. Follow the Holocaust article example (does not feature or mention pseudoscholars). Ramos1990 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Please read the full entry before replying. There are two main sections under the Modern Scholarship heading: Mainstream view, and Fringe view. I was specifically editing the Fringe view section and adding to it. As of now it consists of one main paragraph briefly citing views from centuries ago and then dismissing them, followed by a few sentences also dismissing any and all fringe views without allowing what they are or who holds them! I was merely adding a short list of a small fraction of the scholars that hold these views, and listing an example of the views of one of them on the subject. I no way is that disruptive editing nor personal opinions. Please recant your statements at your earliest convenience. Neuronautical (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Historicity of Jesus[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historicity of Jesus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy[edit]

Hello Neuronautical. Thanks for expressing your valid concerns and for your attempts to make some improvements. It seems to me that it may be more rewarding for you to not approach the problems as a fight between right or wrong, but as a challenge to demonstrate editing and negotiation skills.

Especially with controversial pages that attract pushers of a certain POV, you'll need a lot of patience to get things done. If you just add some common sense info to the page without any reliable source, it will be deleted soon after. Even countering dubious stateents with wp:rs can suffer that fate, often with a more or less reasonable referal to some guideline.

Checking the used citations of dubious claims and WP:MINE these to improve accuracy can be more efficient. It can often help to just attribute a statement to its author, and to demonstrate a likely bias through informative specifications (for instance, even an (outdated) source by Prof. J.A. Ratzinger may be used as an arguably reliable source on a scientific topic –attributed or not– but if you add/specify his bluelinked identity, most readers will question the neutrality of the statement, the article, and its (ir)responsible editor).

Even without any RS to one's advantage, it can be fair/good practice to dispute any biased, inaccurate or dubious statement on the talk page (see WP:AD and WP:NPOVD). Take care to state concerns politely and with factual criticism and/or possible solutions directed at improvement of the page. The problematic element can then be flagged within the article via Template:Disputed inline, Template:Unreliable source?, et cetera, or the full article via Template:POV, Template:Disputed or Template:Dubious.

There can be considerate pushback with a lot of wp:lawyering / wp:gaming, but this will usually refer/link to guidelines that offer great handles on how to use or counter these (and related guidelines) to your advantage.

Good luck and do not forget to make editing a fun, informative or otherwise worthwhile experience! Joortje1 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joortje1: good idea, to encourage editors in their disruptive editing. Note that hiding disruptive editing behind overt civil behavior is still disruptive; encouraging this is in itself may also be considered to be disruptive. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there's even a name for it (and an essay). And the statement above about

how to use or counter these (and related guidelines) to your advantage (emphasis added)

tells me everything I need to know about the commenter. Neuronautical, please don't follow their misguided advice, or you will likely eventually find yourself no longer able to edit this topic. Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This "tells me everything I need to know" ad hominem whining reads like projection. Joortje1 shared even-headed strategy and advice that appears to be well-intentioned and supportive of the fundamental goals of encyclopedia entries. Joshua Jonathan responded with sarcasm and threats, and Mathglot followed it up with slander and more threats. With such admins, it is clear that no matter what strategy I follow, some truth will not find its way into entries that have banned simple facts. Thank you all the same, Joortje. Neuronautical (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the use of wp: templates fool you: I doubt whether editors who act like these people do could attain wp:adminship. Nonetheless, it indeed seems hopelessly difficult to get anything significant done within their favourite page. Yet, I'm not too pessimistic about the babysteps we've made since I first looked at it a few monts ago, and it's been good exercise for me to discuss things on that controversial talk page. I actually don't care that much about either side of the debate and its topic, but I found the many logical fallacies and lack of NPOV in the article too cringeworthy and the standards of wikipedia too relevant to not engage. Joortje1 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]