Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

A word to the wise

Let's put this aside for now The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

James, a word to the wise. As you well know, your behaviour on this page is currently under discussion at AN/I. At the moment as I read it the likely outcome of that discussion is that you will be topic banned from creationism articles, probably broadly construed, if it follows the usual form of these things. In the meantime you continue to battle away here. Stop it now. Stop making any edits to the article and withdraw from discussion on this talk page. If you ignore this warning and continue, you stand a really good chance of being indeffed, rather than merely topic banned. I think the chances of you escaping unsanctioned are now close to zero. Take my advice and salvage what you can of your repitation while you still can. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to expect from Wikipedia anymore, as I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning). I honestly won't be surprised if I get indeffed without warning, too, straight after my topic ban is imposed, for two/three reverts of edits with no consensus. So I don't know how seriously I shall take your warning. Either way, advising me to refrain from even participating on talk pages, which is exactly the thing I was advised to do to avoid a topic ban, seems a bit unreasonable. Although, once again, unreasonable does not mean it shouldn't be followed, as I have come to learn. I don't know which advice to follow, as every advice I was given is contradicted by at least one other advice I was also given, which means that no matter which advice I choose to follow, I will always be in the wrong. I was first advised to follow WP:BRD; then, when I did, I was accused of editing without consensus, and now my following of it is being cited as one of the reasons why I should be topic-banned; I was then advised to gain consensus for any change that I make, and, when I did, I was accused of stirring action, and my edit was repeatedly reverted in favour of an edit with no consensus, me being (in hindsight, perhaps rightly, but my intention was to self-revert) accused of edit-warring. And now, when I stopped edit-warring or stirring any action and instead restrict myself exclusively to the talk page, I am accused of battling away. You see, there is no way out. If a group of "experienced editors" decide that you are not worthy of editing on a certain topic, they will oust you from it, no matter the manner in which you edit. This will remain the only lesson I will have learnt from the situation until someone coherently and understandingly explains to me why my editing warrants a topic ban, while user:Roxy the dog's and user:Guy Macon's editing is exemplary or, if not that, in any way condonable.^Ol^Ja 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, compared to your editing, my editing is exemplary. That's why you have made 3000 edits and have been blocked four times, with a topic ban in your near future, whereas I have made 45,000 edits over a 12 year period and have never been blocked. I even wrote an essay for people in your situation: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that isn't a good explanation, is it. Even before your reply, I knew that you think your editing is exemplary when compared to mine; you saying that again doesn't give me any new information. What I'd like to know is why you think that - despite the fact that you seem to be violating many more WP policies than I do.^Ol^Ja 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning)

Sure, no warnings whatsever about edit-warring, unless you count this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this. Or when you edit-warred about football, like this. Or advice like this, or this. --Calton | Talk 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Calton, would you please explain this revert of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed? Why did you leave an edit summary that reflects on Oldstone James rather than commenting on the change you are making. Oldstone James, why did you use the edit summary that you did when adding the hyphen? It seems to me to not relate to your edit. Also, please don't revert Calton again, no matter what. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I used the edit summary that I did to point out that the previous revert by user:Calton was against what some other users thought: that "promoted" should not be used as a word when talking about creation science. I decided to add a hyphen because that seemed to be the most minor, insignificant, and uncontroversial change that I could think of that would actually improve the article. Unfortunately, null edits don't seem to be working anymore, so this was the closest to a null edit I could come up with. Once again, though, my edits were reverted because it was me who made the edit, as was the case with my previous grammatical corrections, although this time the editor was open about this. But, as I said, the most important feature of the edit was the edit-summary.^Ol^Ja 17:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

He was just tidying up the mess made by your potential protégé making a null edit. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Both of those edit summaries are way out of line, but in different ways. An edit summary should be an accurate and neutrally worded description of the edit.

Related: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An amusement park with a Noah's Ark theme is... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy – useful to get outside input. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Calton's edit is not a null edit, it is removing a hyphen from "Noah's Ark-themed", changing it to "Noah's Ark themed". And if it had been a null edit, there would be no reason to revert it... particularly with an edit summary that is basically a personal attack. I don't know why OJ used the edit summary he did when adding the hyphen, which is why I asked, and I don't know why Calton reverted the addition. I do know that neither OJ having made a mess at times nor OJ being a PITA are justification for reverted an edit he made unless that edit is actually damaging to the article or against consensus, etc. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll say it again, He was just tidying up the mess made by your potential protégé making a null edit. Please read carefully. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And I'll repeat: neither OJ's edit nor Calton's revert was a null edit, nor were either of them dummy edits. OJ added a hyphen, Calton removed it. OJ used an edit summary that seems unrelated to the edit, Calton's edit summary was a personal attack on OJ, and Guy Macon's summary that both "are way out of line" seems pretty accurate to me. You might want to read WP:NULL closely, by the way, as a null edit does not allow an edit summary to be saved which proves neither of these could be a null edit. Finally, if you have some problem with me or something I've done, please raise it directly. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

would you please explain this revert of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed?

Nothing. The answer to your question is that I screwed up: I thought I was reverting a different edit. I'm sorry for complicating things unnecessarily. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Calton, thank you for your response and I am glad to hear that it was just an error. May I suggest that a less confrontational edit summary would have been helpful? In any case, mistakes happen and it is great when something turns out to be a simple mistake and nothing more. Regards, EdChem (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

EdChem, I have a problem with interpretation of the two edits inserting and removing the null colon that was used by James so he could introduce the snarky edsum. I was just pointing it out. Your interpretation is different to mine, that's all. Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, I would also have a problem with any editor "inserting and removing the null colon ... so he could introduce the snarky edsum." If OJ has done that, I am quite willing to state that it is inappropriate. If, however, you are talking of the hyphen, I don't think we have only a difference in interpretation as I think your facts are in error. OJ added the hyphen, which was appropriate. It was removed by Calton who has stated that that edit was a mistake. It has now been replaced with an ndash following advice at talk:MOS by Guy Macon. So, OJ made no null edit nor any dummy edit (which is what I think you mean), and the substantive edit that he did make was an improvement to the article. As for the edit summary, I thought it was a copy-and-paste error but OJ's explanation has shown otherwise. It was an inappropriate summary as it did not actually summarise the edit being made and it was, as you say, snarky – it would not have been an appropriate summary to include in the edit history by way of a dummy edit even if it had been a dummy edit, which it was not. I have already posted to OJ's talk making this point, and have yet to check for any response, but I did suggest that a talk page post would have been a better choice as would copyediting it. Oldstone James, what is your current view of the edit summary that you left on the edit adding the hyphen? EdChem (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A proposal: Oldstone James is pretty much certain to be topic banned, blocked, or mentored and thus is unlikely to use an edit summary on a minor typo fix as a soapbox again. Carlton admits made a mistake and didn't realize that he was reverting a minor typo fix (an error made more likely by the typo fix mot being properly labeled in the edit summary) and is unlikely to make the same mistake again. Carlton is unlikely to use a WP:NPA edit summary like "It's not that I don't trust you ... wait, I don't trust you" again. I hope that Roxy will dial it down a bit and not write things like "your potential protégé" again (further discussion won't change the odds of that happening) and is extremely unlikely to misidentify a null edit or dummy edit again. Because of all of these things, I propose that we stop talking about this, let everyone involved save face, let this comment be the last one, and collapse or archive this thread 48 hours after the last comment is posted. If you agree, please do nothing and go back to figuring out how this page should best reflect what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• For info: Oldstone James is now raising "creation science" at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Edit Suggestion

I know many of you higher-up editors on this page don't like AiG & creationism, so I'd like to run this by you guys first to avoid another nasty edit war and inadvertently undoing all the good work that has been done so far.
Do you think this edit makes sense?
From this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead supports pseudoscientific creation science.
To this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their creationist view of the Genesis creation narrative.
Or this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their pseudoscientific creationist view of the Genesis creation narrative.

Just feels like it reads better to me, but what do you guys think? Also if you anti-AiGers prefer the second edit suggestion (as you undoubtedly will lol) you will get your "pseudoscientific" claim a little further up in the article. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about what I particularly like (or don't!), but I would favor the alternative change. As far as most mainstream sources go, AiG's approach is pseudoscientific, and I think it's important to have that up front. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about it being pushed up, but rather it reading better overall. Saying "Joe ignores what doesn't align with his worldview, which is nihilism" reads worse than "Joe ignores anything against nihilism". That's the logic I'm trying to follow.
Personally, I don't think this page should even be using a derogatory term like "pseudoscience" to refer to AiG (and FTR there isn't overwhelming consensus about that here either) but a combination of the scientific community at large's rejection of creationism and the majority of high-level editors on the page who agree that it's pseudoscience are why I mentioned that those on the other side might like that claim being bumped up a little bit. Not that I agree with it, nor is the point for it to be more prominent. But I'm not going to start an editing war rn because the majority disagrees with me. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I find the original sentence better is all the information it is able to condense (including via its wikilinks). I agree with Dumuzid that it's not a question of pro/anti editors: one doesn't need to be against to understand that it's pseudoscientific or that there are better explanations and mainstream geology and biology is not anti-creationism activism. Moreover, the article text is not supported by our beliefs but by citations to reliable sources. The lead is a bit exceptional in that it must summarize the article's body.

The last suggestion also includes the pseudoscience mention to satisfy WP:PSCI but it is a bit different: it starts with the premise that the pseudoscientific arguments are already established, causing the rejection of scientific evidence. In the first/original sentence, new pseudoscientific arguments or apologetics can be developped to reject new scientific evidence that may contradict the doctrine (and indeed, creationist movements are part of a living tradition). —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a better read to me; reads more smoothly and avoids repetition.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)