User talk:William.The.Honest

Hello, William.The.Honest, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Cosmology. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Cosmology Theroadislong (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, however if you are an author of the "uneditable" discussion on creationism, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide said "reference" to untrue statements. So please, be my guest and provide references to "scientific" that supports using such term when refering to a non-falsifiable hypothesis (or theory). William.The.Honest (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work that way. We go by what reliable sources say about a subject. Read that link and also WP:VERIFY. We are a mainstream encyclopedia. Thus the essay Wikipedia:Academic bias says correctly "Some editors new to Wikipedia are somewhat surprised to find out that Wikipedia has a pro-academic bias. For example, Wikipedia does take the side of Charles Darwin and calls evolution a fact, or the paradigm of biology to use somewhat fussy language. Wikipedia does apply the pseudoscience label to creation science and intelligent design. How does Wikipedia know this? It knows it from biologists who live by publish or perish. The biologists have reached a scientific consensus that evolution is valid and that creationism and intelligent design are not, insofar as we speak of science. (Creationism is theologically okay, but as far as it pretends to be scientific, it is labeled pseudoscience.)" That's just the reality of the situation and you aren't going to change that. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence, academic or not, to support evolution as scientific fact. If you did it would be referenced in your pseudoscientific presentation in question. It amazes me that you would even claim that and it is obvious you are not up to date with current thinking in biology, let alone any other real science. It is perfectly aware to me that you have locked this article from editing out of fear that facts would be challenged and set straight. Therefore I, William The Honest, formally retract my request to have the false information either validly referenced or permanently removed. You may continue your dogmatic, dishonest, self serving publication as you wish. William.The.Honest (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Wikipedia:Academic bias: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" P.S. I suppose the world is still flat too! ;-) William.The.Honest (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, can I have the contact information for your supervisor please. William.The.Honest (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You mean my wife? We're all editors here, no one is a supervisor. On the other hand, there are people with specific roles mainly not dealing with content (those dealing with content are mediators with no powers). For instance, we have an elected WP:Arbitration Committee that some people have compared with the US Supreme Court which deals only with behavior. We have WP:Administrators, sometimes referred to as Sysops with powers to block people, lock articles in various ways, and delete material so that only Admins can see it (eg copyright). Some Admins can suppress material so that other Admins can't see it, there are only s small number of those. I served two terms on the Committee and am one of those few. But you aren't accountable to any specific person nor am I. No superiors. As for Creationism being locked, that happened almost a year ago and is nothing to do with me. But it's only locked against those without accounts and brand new editors or editors with only a handful of edits. You'll be able to edit it soon. Readed WP:3RR before you do, because I can assure you if you continue the way you've started you'll be blocked, and not by me. And yes, that's only an essay, but it's right. Read WP:VERIFY Doug Weller talk 06:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the link from your name in these correspondences and it identifies you as an administrator of the English Wikipedia. Is that correct? And if that's correct then doesn't that apply to the base project of which Creationism is hosted under? If that's correct then wouldn't you have someone in a supervisory role over seeing your duties as an administrator? I hope that's not your wife, for what a conflict of interest that would be! :-) I could send you a screen shot of the aforementioned link if there is some way you know of to do so. Just let me know and I'll be happy to. William.The.Honest (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no in in a supervisory role overseeing my duties as an Administrator. Not that that's relevant, I haven't used my Admin powers here in any way. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially reopening my request to cite or remove the term "scientific" when used in reference to evolution within the article titled "Creation Theory" for the following reasons: 1. The term adds no useful information to the subject being discussed and has the affect of causing unnecessary hostilities toward opposing parties. 2. The term is used in a way that violates WP policy for neutral point of view. 3. The concept that "evolution is scientific" must be either cited or removed, since it is now being challenged, or it violates WP policy for providing a reliable source reference. 4. Claiming evolution as scientific creates an unduly biased contention between the competing ideologies of theist and atheist creation stories. This in turn violates WP policy for an unbiased article. Please help me make this article better for everyone by removing the the term scientific when used in reference to evolution. It only serves to bolster hostility between the competing groups and serves no good purpose in the article other than creating a bias. It would also help keep with Wikipedia's "neutral publishing" vision. Thank you for this consideration. If you will not take the requested action I would appreciate if you would provide me the proper information I can use to escalate this issue to a higher authority within Wikipedia, that is not your wife (grin).

William.The.Honest (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW none of my edits have violated WP policy. So making intimidating statements threatening my editorial status is uncalled for. You have a right to your opinion but as an administrator I would expect more professional behavior rather than intimidation tactics. If an article on Wikipedia violates policy it is the right of any editor to either remove, reword, cite or otherwise correct the error. Doing so in my best effort does NOT imply violating any editing policy. Also, whether or not the essay is correct does NOT make it policy and it is incorrect to use it as such. These are just some of the issues that cause me concern with your decision making process which is why I'd like to discuss it with someone with more authority than yourself. But I'm certain you know this and that is why you have tried so hard in these communique's to avoid providing the proper hierarchical information. Very frustrating indeed! William.The.Honest (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of sources confirming that evolution is scientific, you can start by reading Evolution which includes many of them. To suggest that it is not scientific is patently ridiculous. Wikipedia is NOT neutral it has a bias for reality and mainstream science. This link [1] has some useful "scientific" detail. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are confused. Evolutionists have been making claims of being scientific for more than a hundred years. But "claims" are not evidence of being scientific not to mention the enormous body of data and documentation contradicting it. Science is a process well documented here on Wikipedia and in a plethora of truely scientific works perhaps you should bone up on current thinking. And yes Wikipedia DOES have a neutral publishing policy. Again you fail to know the facts. I didn't start this process to debate theist versus atheist ideologies I started it to avoid those problems. But it seems you are quite bent on arguing as opposed to resolving. If you think your "thousands of sources" prove that evolution is scientific, then cite the article. But if it is found that you are citing sources that only claim to be scientific rather that proving it is scientific then you will not be doing any service to the public other than repeating the atheistic world view of their creation story. That is simply religious belief and has no bearing on being scientific. Again, cite some works that prove evolution is scientific and we'll be done with it. But if you blanket the citing with irrelevant evolutionist dogma that only make CLAIMS to being scientific then I will press the issue as vandalism. I don't like being confrontational but I am no push over either so please don't just flood me supposed links to cites that don't truely address the issue. Show me ONE cited work, with page reference, that proves evolution is scientific and I'll not bother you about removing that cite from the creation theory article (but you are required to cite the reference in the article as per WP policy otherwise you should remove the word scientific). Be sure that by proving to be scientific requires adhering to the scientific process which includes being "repeatable and testable". Good luck! William.The.Honest (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are just trolling, goodbye. Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe you're not trolling. You are telling an editor with over 125,000 edits that they don't understand how Wikipedia works. And yet you keep thinking we have a neutral publishing policy - you need to read WP:NPOV. We will always call creation science pseudoscience because that is what the sources that we consider reliable call it. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently you are wrong again see WP 5 Pillars at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars . For someone claiming to be all mighty and powerful having full authority with no oversight and a whopping 1/8th million edits to their credit how is it you are SOOOOOO WRONG??? I am taking this discussion to the Wikipedia Foundation for review. You should be ashamed of your conduct here, both of you (Doug and longroad). Name calling, failing to cite or remove when required by WP policy, false accusations, and on. I told you I am no push over so please take another unwise action adding to the list already compiled. I tried to resolve this rationally, but you two just can't seem to understand what the proper coarse of action should be. So you revert to childish behavior. So be it. Goodbye! William.The.Honest (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bye to you also. The Foundation isn't my boss or supervisor in any way and doesn't get involved with this sort of thing (I've worked with them enough to know). Btw I've got over 200,000 edits, so if you're referring to me your mathematics is also wrong. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, your the autonomous, all mighty, authoritative voice in any matter on Wikipedia! No one should dare challange you, yeh? BTW 125000 = 1/8th million, math is correct ... 125000 was your claim (see above in this discussion boss) Now are you exaggerating the 200000? Who knows and who cares, it's conceitedly extraneous information. You can't even get the facts about yourself straight. Why ANYONE would believe you about anything is beyond understanding. You perfectly match the Wikipedia definition of a troll. Your responses here have only been to incite discourse, you continually insult my intelligence, you lie about WP policy, fail to abide by WP policy, fail to admit your errors, and claim to be the autonomous authority here on WP. And that's just for starters. The arrogance is astounding! A note to all else, stop feeding the troll! William.The.Honest (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:William.The.Honest. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who am being attacked. It is clear! Both of you have been attacking me, lying to me, failing to follow WP policy and on. So YOU should stop! I have been rational and only responsive to the attacks and lies being published against me. You two however are bent on threatening my editorial privileges simply because you don't approve or agree with my request to cite challenged information in the article of discussion (read the policies, I have and it is clear you are in violation). Stop threatening me! Troll William.The.Honest (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]