User talk:Zenkai251: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:09, 16 December 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Zenkai251, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ryan Vesey contribs 04:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Two images that I uploaded are going to be deleted. How can I save them? I think I might have used the wrong tag on them. Can someone please help me? Zenkai251 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, not a hope. The possibility of using web photos as "fair use" will nearly always fail when the subject is alive - because there is the possibility of obtaining a replacement which can then be used "normally" (i.e you go and see a concert and take your own camera!). The only alternative is to contact the web site as ask them to donate the photographs, therby obtaining an OTRS ticket - see WP:DCM for details Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. there is nothing on either web site that would allow the pictures here. In fact one site puts up "© 2006 - 2011 BMA Designs. All rights reserved." - that is a definite "no go". Although such sites are put up as "promotional", they often don't want their photos here - remember all images on WP (that are not "non free") can be used for any purpose, including commercial uses - you could in theory take a set of 12 photos off WP, and make and sell calendars for next year, all that would be required would be some small print to say where the photo came from. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know.

In several parts and in some communities of the US labeling someone an atheist is characterizing them as most vile, immoral, evil, unworthy of public office or protection under the law. I.e. Sub-human. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I call someone an "atheist" I definitely don't mean any offense. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And adding adjectives like 'foolish' isn't offensive? And I note that you have no evidence for any of this labelling editors, only your interpretation of their edits. And you don't seem able to consider the possibility that an atheist or Christian might still edit from an NPOV perspective, which is worrying. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know for a fact that several people on here don't edit with a NPOV. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

Please stop editing against consensus, edit warring, and making pointy edits. Doing so is considered tendentious. I'd love for you to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but your edits recently have not been constructive, and if this continues, I or another editor will have to escalate the matter, which is very likely to result in a block. Perhaps it would be good for you to contribute to a new topic that interests you for a while, like planes, or parks and towns near you, or politics. If you need help, please stop and ask for it before continuing to edit in this way. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider this a warning for edit warring on Evolution. You are close to 3rr (see that last linked page for details). Please stop reverting, and contribute to the talk page with your concerns. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain yourself. Never have I edited against a consensus I was aware of. All I'm doing is trying to make some articles neutral. Zenkai251 (talk)

For instance, consensus on Genesis creation narrative was to link to creation myth, and you have recently taken to reverting editors to remove "creation myth" from the lead. Edit warring tends to be seen as editing against consensus (or without consensus) as well. Please take a breather, and ask questions if you have them. This recent editing is disruptive. As I mentioned above, it might be good for you to edit other articles for a little while, otherwise this new ANI case may result in a formal topic ban. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my proposal for Genesis creation narrative. I wanted to change creation myth to creation narrative, not remove anything. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your proposal. However, the RfC held on the talk page unanimously supported linking creation myth, and so changing "creation myth" to "creation narrative" is against consensus. Consensus can change, so you could make a persuasive argument on the talk page after some time has passed and gain support, but until you have done that, editing against the current consensus is disruptive. I understand that you're trying to make the article more neutral, but please understand that the way you are going about it isn't helping. Would you consider taking a breather and editing a new topic for a little while? Perhaps you might also consider adoption, which might better acclimate you with our policies? — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC wasn't a part of my propsal; to tell the truth, I don't know what brought it about. Also, I agree to ease up my edits on the disputed articles as soon as we reach some kind of agreement. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The RfC was an independent question posed by another editor to the community concerning what term we should use to describe Genesis in the lead. The community broadly decided that creation myth was appropriate. As such, the community has reached an agreement on the creation myth issue. Please read WP:CON and WP:TE (particularly here and here). You do not have to agree with consensus for it to form, but abiding by consensus is a necessary part of collaboration on wikipedia. Again, I'd ask that you consider editing other topics or requesting adoption. Could you tell me if you'd be open to either of those ideas? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was to determine whether or not a link to "creation myth" belonged in the lead. It was decided that the link needed to be there. It had nothing to do with changing the phrase to "creation narrative". We have still not yet reached a consensus on my proposal. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors commenting in the RfC noted that the text "creation myth" should appear in the lead. Further, the previous version of the page (which had consensus support) included the text "creation myth". Lastly, a proposal to change the wording to creation narrative has not received consensus support. These are three ways in which consensus could be viewed, and all three support keeping the current wording of "creation myth", at least until a new consensus forms that it should be changed. Can you see why editing the article unilaterally to change the text (and, BTW, also the link) could be seen as disruptive? Also, why did you change List of creation myths to include the Big Bang? I'd appreciate it if you could answer my questions about editing other topics and adoption. It would really help me in deciding how I wish to be involved in this dispute, and it would be a step towards demonstrating good faith on your part. If you have questions about either, I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a break from editing Christian articles and will instead work on classical music articles. I have contributed constructively there in the past. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for answering Zenkai. If you need any help, or have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Good luck! — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity, Bible, etc.

Hiya. I have noticed your recent edits regarding Adam & Eve and such, and thought it probably a good idea to talk with you. Your position on the issue seems to be some variation on Biblical inerrancy. That is a topic about which we have comparatively few reliable sources produced to date - the lack of reliable sources, of course, makes it harder to build any particular articles reflecting that position.

Regarding your earlier comments that any Jew, Christian, or Muslim would say the Genesis creation myth is accurate, I think you should know that at least one very obvious Christian around here, me, favors the use of the term myth in the lead. Yes, I am a Christian. In college, I was even very seriously considering becoming a Dominican monk. (I hope you recognize Catholics as Christians, of course.) And, yes, as an individual, I do personally very much hold open the possibility that the Genesis creation myth is true. However, others do not. This includes members of other non-Abrahamic faiths, as well as at least some nominal Christians who do not believe in the factual accuracy of just about anything in the Bible, including among others liberal Anglicans who think of Jesus as a pure myth or legend. It is in part because of this lack of consensus on the topic that I favor the use of the word "myth". If we were to try to present the Genesis creation myth as factual, then we would face the same problem with many of the Greek myths (there are Greeks who still hold the stories true, as well as other Neopagans), Hindu mythology (having read some of them, I have to say some are factually laughable, but people still believe them), and, yes, even Scientology's Xenu. And there are right now similar discussions being had about the reputability of Astrology and other fringe science or pseudoscience. I cannot see that it makes sense for us to be forced to face the possibility that each and every myth which is current for any group would have to be presented here as factual.

For the most part, our particular audience is the English speaking world. As such, many, if not most, will already know most of the central myths/stories about Adam and Eve, other stories from Genesis, as well as stories about Jesus, Muhammad, and others. If they as individuals are already disbelieving those stories, we only damage our own credibility by trying to present stories which do not have broad-based scientific support regarding their accuracy as factual.

Also, there is the fact that the field of myth and legend is itself a very broad one, and, as per Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell and others, there is a great deal of scholarly material available on the development of myths. Even as a Christian, I think there is a decent chance that you as an individual find some of the later stories written about Jesus and others, like the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, for example, to be false. If that is true, then it definitely in your interests (and, in this case, mine as well) to present the new material as new, and, if possible, provide links to content elsewhere which indicates that the questionable material is in some way derived from some other sources of at best dubious reliability.

While I sympathize very much with your position, I do think that, maybe, the best way to go to present the belief that the Bible is absolutely true is to find information on some group which specifically believes that, or find sources published by reputable publishers, and develop that content. By doing so, you would be able to present the information here and in a way which is accessible to all. Whatever our personal beliefs are, I hope that you, like the rest of us, want to present the best neutral information possible.

If you want any help in maybe finding sources for such material, drop me a note on my talk page, or send me an e-mail with your address, indicating what sort of material and/or sources you're looking for, and I will be more than pleased to offer whatever help I can. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post, John. The reason that I want the word "myth" removed is because it implies falseness, and there's no way that anyone can prove it to be false. Also, I know of several groups that hold Genesis to be factual; those include Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research. I'm not sure if such groups would be considered "reliable sources" on wikipedia. And I would appreciate some help in finding some that would be considered reliable. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your statement above seems to be placing the shoe on the wrong foot. I agree that no one can prove pretty much anything about the subject of Genesis, or Jesus, or Xenu, or Hinduism, or Buddha, or a lot of other things. What we are obliged to rely upon are independent sources which meet WP:RS, and that tends to very strongly favor scientific sources over religious sources. I accept that, myself, given cases like Xenu mentioned above. We can't prove he never existed either. But policy and guidelines demand that the burden of proof as per WP:BURDEN is on those who seek to add (or keep) information in an article, not on those who contest it. I egret that the groups you mentioned above are groups with which I am not myself particularly familiar. They probably are considered reliable sources for their own opinions, but in cases of argument we favor articles in peer reviewed academic journals, overviews by independent academics or others in encyclopedias, etc. In this case, that would place the greater reliability on sources like peer reviewed historical, archaeological, and other journals, as they do not have any sort of inherent "bias" beyond that of scientism. Also, books that have received favorable reviews in peer reviewed journals and the like are favored over those that don't have such reviews, in a head-to-head combat.

Regarding the point that myth implies falseness, I am not sure that belief is necessarily support in academic literature. In popular culture, yes, the relationship is obvious - people in general use the word only for things of dubious authenticity, like for instance some of the stories about Krishna in Hinduism. But even the Hindus who accept those stories as accurate tend to accept the use of the word "myth" around here, because the current academic usage of the word, which is less judgmental, is appropriate. They might say that the other similar, false, stories are all perversions of the original true story, I don't know, but they do accept the use of the term.

I do know that the Garden of Eden story is prominently included and discussed in a fairly highly regarded academic reference book whose title describes its contents as being "creation myths", so it would be hard to argue that the term "myth" is wholly inappropriate. And a lot of the scientific/scientist reference works indicate that the story does not have any particular independent evidence to support it. Personally, I think the best approach might be to accept the use of the term, but maybe add something in the lead section to the effect that while the story is not widely accepted in independent peer reviewed academic sources, it is still accepted as accurate in at least some Jewish, Christian, and (maybe, I don't know about this myself) Moslem groups.

I will go over the books of newspapers, journals, etc., I mentioned above, and see if there are any peer reviewed publications which could be brought forward to counter the mainstream academic press. It will probably take at least a few days to go through those books, but I will contact you with what I can find. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback regarding ANI discussion

FYI, I posted a reply to you on Til's talk page. Here's the diff. I'd ask that you please read it, and as always, ask if you have questions or need help. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis creation narrative

Hi Zenkai. I just read your conversation with Mann Jess on his/her user page and thought I'd say a little myself, without wanting to pile in on you.

I don't like to see anyone made uncomfortable by their experience on Wikipedia. This should be an enjoyable, collegial activity carried out in friendship. So I'm sorry that the current lead to the article upsets you.

That said, there seem to be two options open to you: walk away (and find an area where you won't be jumped on heavily, as is highly likely in religious articles - they attract people with strong views), or else come to terms with the way a controversial article and much-followed like this is edited.

The statement that upsets you is that Genesis 1-2 is based on Mesopotamian myths. You'd like to change this to "may be based". But as Mann Jess points out, the source leaves no room for that wording.

Given that, if you want to dispute the statement, you have to examine the source.

It's from Nahum Sarna. Sarna was (he died in 2005) a very eminent scholar, with professorships at places like Brandeis and Columbia, and his works are widely quoted. And he was a specialist in Genesis and the Pentateuch. So, he's a reliable source. That's the first thing: is the source a reliable one?

The next thing is, how widespread is this view? Is it shared by 100% of other experts, or by a significant majority, or a significant minority, or a small minority, or is it a new proposal? Sarna expresses it as if it's 100%. I don't know on this score, but in all my reading for the article, I never came across any other reliable source that said otherwise - and those reliable sources include some very conservative scholars (I think all the commentaries in the bibliography are by conservatives and evangelicals - at least one of them even says he thinks Moses wrote Genesis).

I'm not saying all this to convince you to change your mind, but to demonstrate how I wrote the entry: finding reliable sources and bouncing them off other reliable sources. That's why the list of books in the bibliography is so much longer than the list of sources quoted as references - they were all consulted, but only the ones who expressed a view most clearly were used. Nevertheless, the books are all there, and anyone who doubts anything in the article can check them out.

I hope this helps. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, no, biblical scholarship isn't a science, it doesn't lead to assured results (but does science?) but it does have its methods and they're useful ones. PiCo (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PiCo, I hope we can find some reliable sources to support my proposal, or at least change it so it isn't stated as a 100% fact. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 08:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk:Genesis creation narrative shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. N^oformation ^Talk 08:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Talk:Genesis creation narrative]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-tpv3 --> [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] <sup>[[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]]</sup> 08:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
+[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at [[:Talk:Genesis creation narrative]] shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it.  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.  '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].'''
+If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors.  You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].  In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].  You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Noformation|<font color="black">N</font><sup><font color="red">o</font></sup><font color="black">f</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="black">rmation</font>]] <font color="black"><sup>[[User talk:Noformation|Talk]]</sup></font> 08:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)