User talk:GodBlessYou2

Becky Bell article

Hello, I notice you’ve recently edited the Becky Bell page and I thought you may be interested in the justfacts.com website which provides some additional information on the case (starting about 1/4 of the way down)[1]

Of specific interest are statements made to a newspaper reporter by Becky Bell’s best friend, Heather Clark. According to justfacts.com, “Ms. Clark, who accompanied Becky to Planned Parenthood, told the reporter that Becky did not have an induced abortion. She also said that when she visited Becky (four days after she had gotten sick and the night before she passed on), Becky asked her to schedule an abortion in Louisville, Kentucky for two days later”

The above information is from the following article: "Abortion debate shifting; Individuals become symbols in dispute." By Joe Frolik. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 9, 1990.

However, to include this relevant information in the Wikipedia article, someone would have to locate the old Cleveland Plain Dealer article, which I think is only now available on microfilm. I’ve being meaning to do so, but have not gotten around to it, and thought if you had interest you may be able to get your hands on this old article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if new sources are needed so much as is a more neutral presentation of the sources already being used. I think you would be better off commenting on the Becky Bell page to improve the edits. It appears that there is an editor resisting any changes that do not preserve the articles slant. More than one editor actively voicing support for more neutral presentation of the facts may help. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your persistence

You should be commended for not backing down in your efforts to improve the Becky Bell article in the face of opposition from experienced editors. The article as it presently stands is much better than earlier versions in no small part to your efforts. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it's clear I wouldn't have made headway without your help. It appears to be one of those articles that becomes unnecessarily contentious. Having another editor support edits is crucial when confronted with protecionists / POV police. Ironically, rather than seeing Wikipedia developed to present as much information as possible, some editors engage in wikilawyering and bullying tactics to exclude information, not because it is wrong and can't be verified in third party sources, but simply because it may expose one or more of their assertions of "fact" as a point of view. Seriously, the biggest gold star goes to Ca2james for confirming all the material others have cited regarding the Plains Dealer article.

Feel free to notify me if there are other articles in which you are running into similar obstructionism. I'm not sure if that invite will protect you from accusations of "canvassing," so you should check out the rules before contacting me. (This may fall under "Editors who have asked to be kept informed," but you might need to check on the talk page there, first, to be sure.) It just really bothers me when people try to keep new information from being added to Wikipedia based on the types of wikilawyering arguments we've seen used in the Becky Bell piece.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Bishonen | talk 19:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Maxim Makukov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maxim Makukov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, GodBlessYou2. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The relevant section is WP:FTN#GodBlessYou2.

jps (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Fine-tuned Universe. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Here is a quote of the third sentence in the vandalism guidelines.

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

Please do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Adam in MO Talk 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you plan to similarly rebuke user:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for accusing me of "Creationist POV-pushing" [2] for daring to cite a book by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch. (I don't see your entry on his talk page yet). I really have a hard time seeing how the deletion of two topic relevant references to reputable books by notable physicists (Haish, and Stephen Barr) who have actively studied the topic and written extensively on it can be classified as a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia."

I would think your time scolding me would have been better spent on the talk page reminding those deleting my contribution to respect my good faith edits, especially given the quality of the reliable sources I provided. —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with another editor's comments or conduct then say so yourself, as I have done here. But it won't serve you well to ignore the advice and warnings given to you, in good faith, and continue to edit war and make uncivil accusations. This project wants you to be here. We want you to thrive. We want this to be a fun, and productive environment for all editors. So, please, spend time reflecting on whether your own behavior meets our minimum standards and less time engaging in a battleground mentality.--Adam in MO Talk 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you some advice?

I'm trying to head you down a road which won't get you blocked because, fairly, that's where you're headed. You're making a mistake I've seen many make before when it comes to scientific subjects. You're not realizing that a scientist that abandons the scientific method at some point in their career, abandons journals, but continues to publish blogs, fringe books from fringe publishers or pseudoscientific claptrap can't be cited as an expert, or having any due weight, just based on their prior credentials. Nor are they notable unless their fringe ideas at least gets huge coverage in media. That's the main issue you seem to keep running into. As an anecdote this summer I was arguing, amongst many others, with a Nobel Prize winner on this site about his own article and a friend of his article. An NB winner who had long ago left anything you'd call science behind. Eventually he had to concede that there was no scientifically evidential data to support his claims through any RS and that's how the article had to be crafted to meet WP standards. Capeo (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to see the conversation you had with the NB winner. What articles and talk pages did these occur on?---GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was Brian Josephson, who is also a user here, though most of the discussion took place at the Russell Targ talk page. Capeo (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, i followed that Talk:Russell Targ discussion and thought Brian Josephson was great, especially in his comments on how absurdity goes on and on in Wikipedia. I just revisited that, being reminded from here, and think i'm gonna get one book that Josephson recommended there. And I think i read interesting discussion at User talk:Brian Josephson, too, and commented myself at User talk:Brian Josephson#The World is Watching!. I don't recall it quite as Capeo summarizes it exactly, but Capeo may be right too. --do ncr am 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of absurdities such as cold fusion, water memory, remote viewing and on and on. That's probably not what you meant though ;). There's a simple fact about science that eludes proponents of the above mentioned and many other pseudoscience topics: proof isn't and can't be ignored forever. In science "proof" is replicable evidence that reaches the threshold of undeniability. Can the scientific community be as insular and dogmatic as any other community? Absolutely. Its saving grace though is that evidence always wins out eventually. The above topics for instance have had decades of public, private and even government funding and yet to have produced replicable results. And the vast majority of the comments from The World is Watching are from people who won't accept that and dream up conspiracy instead. As for Professor Josephson and the conversations and disputes relating to himself and Targ, eventually stable articles were developed through consensus of WP policies and everything worked out. We're all parties happy? I'm sure that's not the case. Yet it was a good example of consensus being reached in a contentious area. Capeo (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

It seems the game being played out here is one that is sadly standard on WP. Basically, a group of editors will bully to you until you snap (even ever so slightly) and then they will chime in that you are UNCIVIL. This typically seems to occur in order to censor a POV that the others do not personally agree with. FWIW, I’d be cautious about sourcing (please be careful to avoid self-published sources etc) With RS on controversial topics, it's best to attribute the content to the writer, instead of presenting it as information stated as factual in Wikipedia’s voice etc) and please be aware that any reasonable frustration with this treatment will be deemed UNCIVIL and used against you. Good luck. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which arena BoboMeowCat is referring to, but their description of that process in Wikipdia is very apt. The Brian Josephson-recommended book that I mentioned in another section above is Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, probably roughly on the same topic applied to academia. I learn more about how other worlds work, for better or for worse, from experiencing and watching the processes in Wikipedia where everything is written out and saved. :( --do ncr am 01:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all of two months

~~you have been here all of three months.~~ Please read WP:TPG and if you have questions about what people can and cannot do on their own Talk page, please let me know. And if you want to have conversations about article editing, please open discussion on the relevant article Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've been here since 2011, as you could have seen if had taken the time to do proper research of my contributions [3]–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my error. Corrected above. You are acting like you have been here all of three months. Please see WP:TPO: "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted". Not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to GodBlessYou2. I don't know why i have User:Jytdog's talk page on my watchlist, but I noticed the back-and-forth there. Accepted practice in Wikipedia now is that on your own Talk page, you can remove unwanted comments. You can even request that selected other persons do not ever post on your Talk page. If someone violates such a request, you can just keep deleting their comments, and others will view the violator negatively. That is supported in ARBCOM and other enforcement proceedings. In your disagreement, i think Jytdog is informed more by practice and GodBlessYou2 is speaking more from the intent apparent in the stated wp:TPO guideline, hence you can both be "right". I think that the accepted practice is what ought to be followed, and the wp:TPO presentation ought to be updated to better reflect what that now is. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 00:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks doncram. kind of you to jump in. and... pleased to meet you :) Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until "accepted practice" is incorporated into the policy page, it would seem "accepted practice" is not approved but simply tolerated. I encourage the two of you to go to the policy page and change it to reflect what you think "accepted practice" is. That would avoid confusion and would also give you feedback regarding whether or not the community has generally acknowledged and accepted your new "accepted practice." Until it is accepted by the community, my request that Jytdog should leave my comments on his page, along with those of other editors who have complained about his approach to deleting reliable sources should remain part of the public record to guide future editors in how they might approach editing conflicts.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will quote again, and make it nice and bold for you, from WP:TPO: Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted. Again perhaps, maybe with all cap? SIMPLY DELETING OTHERS' COMMENTS ON YOUR TALK PAGE IS PERMITTED. There surely you will not miss it now. And it is such a little, petty thing, in any case. I read your message. I left you a note on the article talk page. You are just waving your ego around now. Please focus on the content issue; I left you a note with a ping and everything on the article Talk page. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just tried to wp:BeBold with this edit to update the wp:TPO guideline; my wording might or might not be accepted there, we'll see. Jytdog, we probably have overlapped somewhere, and pleasantly, i just don't recall where right now. GodBlessYou2, your reading of the intent of the wp:TPO guideline was really quite reasonable...the guideline as written really seemed to be outdatedly against user talk page deletions. --do ncr am 01:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doncram for recognizing the source of the confusion. You will see I tried to support your efforts for clarification at the Policy guideline page.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Next time you restore a comment to another editors talk page such as you did here [4] for the third time you will find yourself blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that the long held policy that other editors comments should not be hidden wp:TPO has been revoked? By whom? I thought per wp:TPO it was considered disruptive to remove comments and therefore I was, according to policy, entitled to restore my comments?

It was my understanding that these comments were to be left on talk pages precisely so other editors could see if there as a pattern of either good editing or disruptive editing, according to the comments left by editors on the parties' talk page. As you will see, my original post simply asked him to identify where in policy he saw the lack of a page number on a book that is a reliable source as a reason to delete the reference, within hours of its posting, without even asking for the page number before deleting it. My note was very civil. I then later discovered he had deleted my note, which I understand is against policy. Only then did I read other comments on his page and see similar complaints about his tendency to delete other people's reliable sources. So naturally, it appears to me that he's deleting my comment to reduce the record of such complaints on his talk page, and thereby hiding from future readers a record of the actual number of complaints against his editing style. It's my hope that civil questioning and suggestion to him will encourage him to be more collaborative and less hasty in deleting other's contributions to the main articles.

If you are an admin with control over comments left on user talk pages where do you suggest I go to get clarification on (a) your right to overturn policy, and (b) additional input from other administrators about whether or not the disputed content should be restored on his talk page?—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is not allowed to delete others talk page comments on any page but the user page attached to their own account. On that talk page they can delete others comments and others repeatedly restoring them is considered disruption. You can request clarification here WP:ANI Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph under Editing Comments starts: Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Capeo (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to GBU2 several times. I think they get the point.--Adam in MO Talk 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Doc James and to Capeo, please don't be unfair. GodBlessYou2 is right, in my view, in one reasonable reading of Talk Page Guidelines as it is written. Towards addressing the deficiency in the Talk Page Guidelines, please see discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#clarification needed for removal of comments on a user's own talk page. Where a couple editors have agreed that the guideline as written is deficient (it disagrees with itself in different sections). It is NOT clear! Capeo's assertion of clarity here, and Jytdog's assertion of clarity in section above, are overstatements ignoring other parts of the guideline. They're not entirely wrong either; policy/guidelines are ambiguous at best. And editors at the discussion agree that the practice (what I believe is seemingly-now-often-accepted) of considering repeated postings, against a user's wishes to be harassment, is not written into guidelines. So everyone please don't try to enforce unwritten/ambiguous rules here--that can be a form of harassment itself, in my opinion. Please avoid any possible appearance of harassing this user, yourselves! (not saying you were intending to, but please avoid it). :) Enough said, i hope.

To GodBlessYou2, the matter of policy/guidelines is under discussion at the Wikipedia Talk page linked; although my first try at revising the guideline was reverted, I am pretty sure some change will be made. You don't have to do anything more yourself, but you are also welcome to comment in the discussion there if you like, as can any editor. That's where discussion of what policy/guidelines should be, should take place, not here, and definitely not at wp:ANI (the suggestion to bring it up at wp:ANI is cynical, perhaps a goad, and should be disregarded). Thank you for bringing up the general issue. About the comments at Jytdog's talk page, Jytdog has acknowledged receiving the message, so just dropping it now is best. I am personally sorry, to you, that you are running into some of the ridiculousness of Wikipedia bickering. I admire the dignity with which Brian Josephson addressed some of it, I think that's a good example to follow.

Hope everyone has a nice day, elsewhere! Cheers, --do ncr am 18:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

A request to enforce discretionary sanctions against you has been made:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GodBlessYou2.

You are strongly encouraged to comment.

jps (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this request for enforcement, you are now topic-banned from the topic area of the Creation-evolution controversy. The restriction is for six months and includes any edits relating to these topics, across all namespaces (both article content and discussions). This will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Pseudoscience. The WP:AE page contains information on how to appeal this sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I saw the AE notice against you. I work with a lot of the religion related content around here, and I think that we probably could use more content relating to a lot of the content related to the intersection of religion and science, including creationism. Unfortunately, at this point, there are serious issues regarding the amount of space and material as per WP:WEIGHT to give to various aspects of the debate in various articles.

You are apparently a newer editor, and on that basis there is a chance that you might receive more leniency than others. If I might be so bold, I think it would be very much in your own interests if you were to respond at the AE thread linked to in the section above. Thereafter, it might not be a bad idea to review a lot of the content related to this topic, and maybe contact me or other editors involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and its articles for some help in either adding additional content to some of the related articles if that is the best option or perhaps creating additional articles relating to the topic. But the main articles on the topic are, at this point, fairly well developed, and the fact that they fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning editors can have their abilities to edit restricted by uninvolved admins at the AE board I linked to above, means that it is generally a good idea to tread lightly regarding this topic. Proposing changes on an article talk page, or maybe on the Creationism project talk page, is probably the safest way for anyone, newer or older editor, to proceed regarding this topic. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a very good idea to review all the relevant archives of the talk pages. Some ideas, or variations on them, have been proposed and shot down more than once already. Granted, as per WP:CCC, it is possible that something that has been found unacceptable in the past might be found acceptable now, but it is far more likely that attempting to "beat a dead horse" as per WP:DEADHORSE will be taken as disruptive editing and potentially sanctioned as such. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a good idea to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Calling other editors lazy because they disagree with you borders on a personal attack, and saying that they oppose you out of laziness is a big violation of WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD and WP:UNDUE would also be helpful.--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call anyone lazy? --GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a generalized statement on an essay page advising against rapid reverts. I did not accuse any editors. Perhaps those who use reverting too often feel accused by their own conscience. In any case, it's nice to know that every edit I make anywhere on Wikipedia is receiving so much attention, precisely so all of my edits can be reverted.[5]–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A word of thanks

Despite the difficulties and sanctions, I want to thank you for your patient and sagacious contributions to debate and discussions at the Creation-Evolution debate. Unlike some other editors, who have not hesitated to use ad hominems, and express considerable irritability, even in difficult times and under pressure you have shown civility and courtesy and it seems to me a proper and judicious concern for wiki's policies and for impartial encyclopaedic editing. Cpsoper (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the RfC: Creation-Evolution controversy

I believe I had posted in the article TALK earlier asking for you to come back to the scene after a cooling period for all, so think I in particular should thank you for returning. Still seems like instead of responding to the questions asked it runs off into responses on wording, WEIGHT, too terse or just bickering, so perhaps you may feel it was a wasted effort. But regardless of the choices other made in what comes back or how it works out I thank you for choosing to try again, and think an RFC was a good way to try. Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]