Cparev

Hello, Cparev, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Is Genesis History? does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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!  McSly (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Is Genesis History?. 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Is Genesis History?. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Is Genesis History? shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cparev reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: ). Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I admit to being new to Wiki edits and have no interest in getting involved in a “war”. I have neither the time nor the inclination. But I do want those who have decided to use prejorative language in their edits of the article: “Is Genesis History?” to consider how this negatively affects dialogue leading to truth. Some of the edits reverting the description of said article have been posted by users with thousands or tens of thousands of edits. It seems clear that these individuals are seeking to influence others by their dogged and voluminous posts. The folks at “Is Genesis History?” are a very small group whose influence is minuscule in comparison to the overwhelming influence of those with a materialistic naturalist view of science. Why not just leave these folks alone? Your prejorative editorial language (e.g. “pseudoscience”) is inflammatory and inaccurate as far as the tenor of the film is concerned. Plus, there is much more material to watch that helps expand on the issues discussed in the film. Please take a step back and allow an article like this to stand without harassment and bullying. It might feel fun, but it’s not contributing to a nicer society. Thank you. Cparev (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that we know exactly what we are saying, and we are doing so for a good reason? Everyone who's reverted you has been at this for years. Maybe you should stop assuming you know better than everyone else, and start asking questions instead of condescendingly presuming to lecture us about how to do better one thing we all know we can do better than you. I would be more than happy to explain things to you, but you have to ask for help. If you keep insisting upon doing things however you feel is best, regardless of what more experienced editors think, you're just going to end up being shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed that you claim that atheists are twisting the article. You also don't know that: I am personally agnostic and proponents of theistic evolution (i.e. most modern Catholics, meaning most Christians) would not agree with that movie's conclusions either. But all that doesn't matter, since we have sources to summarize and policies to follow. Wikipedia is indeed a secular encyclopedia with academic bias (WP:ABIAS). It also has policies about presenting pseudoscience as what it is (WP:PSCI). Wikipedia's definition of neutrality (WP:NPOV) does not mean avoiding criticism. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution and Wikipedia avoids WP:FALSEBALANCE (pretending that opinions are the same as facts). It would be fine to state what the movie claims by attributing it as opinions/claims. It is also fine to assert as fact that "creation science" is not science, per WP:YESPOV (which is a fact). It is unacceptable to claim that "creation science" is science, even if its name is misleading. Suggested reading: creation science, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, scientific method, scientific theory, evolution as fact and theory, evidence of common descent (and each have citations which are recommended reading). Wikipedia editors also come from many backgrounds with their own beliefs, but that should not dictate article content, since they must avoid original research (WP:OR) and instead select reliable sources (WP:RS) and summarize those. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 08:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about pejorative insulting language. There’s no need to try and hijack an article like this. It seems to me that you seem to find your self worth in attacking people you don’t agree with. I tried being civil with you but you appear to only have one gear: bashing people you don’t agree with and are afraid to dialogue with. I don’t think this is a big deal in the grand scheme of things. So I’ll just leave you alone. I have much more important things to do.

If Wikipedia editors want to do something about it they can. They should make pages like this protected. Why? Because of trolls like you. If they want quality, they should only allow edits that are descriptive of the article, not leave open opportunity for trolls to shape its content. As it is, Wikipedia has suffered from a poor reputation. You make it worse.

It seems to be a tribal thing amongst the new atheists: you troll the Internet and comments sections of thousands of stories every day trying to influence the world. You think by squashing civil speech that you will make the world in your image. And the insecurity that you express is why you spend so much energy trying to make sure your viewpoint is the one people get a chance to listen to. But it’s not. And people see through it. It’s sad you don’t.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cparev (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This enters conspiracy theory domain and keeps accusing editors which is unconstructive. I have nothing else to add but that Wikipedia cares about accuracy and education. If you eventually understand and acknowledge the importance of Wikipedia policies, I'll still be glad to help when you request it. —PaleoNeonate – 03:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday night I remembered you and I recalled how when younger I used to believe that references to evolution and phylogeny in encyclopedias and animal books were a type of preaching. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian denomination claiming that evolution was "only a theory" claiming that life "arised out of mere chance". So I can sympathize. It was many years later that I understood the importance of evolution and how those references to evolution were very useful. In the context of Wikipedia it still does not matter (since as pointed above we use sources and policies), but beliefs are very human and so are editors. —PaleoNeonate – 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)