User talk:BRealAlways

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 December 2020 03:21:58 (UTC)

December 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Special creation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2022
In case it could be useful, the pseudoarchaeology article cites many informational sources and in a fairly recent reply at its talk page I highlighted a few determining aspects. Article talk pages are not discussion WP:FORUMs and if you have specific change suggestions they should be concise and ideally also cite sources (all Wikipedia material must be supported by sources per WP:CITE and WP:V). However, there also is a science reference desk, WP:RD/S. — Paleo Neonate  – 02:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi BRealAlways! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at History of Sumer that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Your edit clearly changed the meaning of the sentence.  Doug Weller  talk 13:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm reiterating the importance of avoiding to use article talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX, especially without proposing recent reliable sources that contradict the material you are contesting. Volunteers will not read huge rants and they are unlikely to be effective, considering that WP must reflect reliable sources rather than editorial opinions.  Although I don't think that your libel allegations were a legal threat so far, editors can also be blocked for making such (WP:NLT).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"I'm reiterating the importance of avoiding to use article talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX, especially without proposing recent reliable sources that contradict the material you are contesting." What material am I contesting?

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Michael Cremo for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. — Paleo Neonate  – 04:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Talk:Anatoly Fomenko can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. This is about this edit that I reverted, trying to scold an editor on an article's talk page instead of focusing on reliable sources and content (WP:FOC, WP:ASPERSIONS). — Paleo Neonate  – 03:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 03:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've brought up your recent talk page edits
here: WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Of Wikipedia
I was very close to reporting you at an administrator noticeboard as there seems to be sufficient evidence of WP:NOTHERE. However I'll first try to explain, in case it's really a misunderstanding of Wikipedia (WP:AGF is also policy, afterall). Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia mostly based on independent secondary reliable sources (WP:5P, WP:RS, WP:CITE). Talk pages are not discussion forums (WP:NOTFORUM) and are reserved for editing collaboration (suggesting concise changes, proposing sources, attempting to seek consensus for contested edits, relevant are WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, a useful guide explaining the bold-edit/revert/discuss cycle). So those talk pages are not to debate the topic itself unless reliable sources can also be presented contesting the current material. It's not a WP:FREESPEECH platform.

Wikipedia also attempts to be a mainstream encyclopedia and to reflect the academic consensus on scientific topics. This means that articles about biological evolution are not the place to promote unscientific alternatives for instance (WP:MNA, WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE). Opinions should also not be treated as equal to widely accepted science or facts (WP:GEVAL, WP:YESPOV). Topics widely considered pseudoscientific should also clearly be exposed as such (WP:PSCI).

Now you appear to be claiming that editors who patrol the encyclopedia to ensure its quality would have some type of conflict of interest. The WP:COI, WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSE links explain what Wikipedia considers to be a conflict of interest and how it should be disclosed when it exists. You then imply that perhaps I have some special relation to other editors like Doug Weller. In fact, as far as I know I never met any of the regular Wikipedians. I live in another country than Doug and the only relationship is Wikipedia. I've been around since 2005 and he's been there before that. Moreover, as part of collaborative processes are noticeboards, WP:FTN is one of those. When a notice is posted there participants will often add the relevant pages to their watchlist, go see their state and if any action is needed like reverting edits, commenting on the talk page, etc.

Finally, I can understand that not everyone necessarily agrees with the content of articles. WP:FIXBIAS is an essay but also a good guide on the approach to adobt. I already mentioned that talk pages are not for general debates, but they are also not to attack other editors. WP:FOC is important, make your point with reliable sources, instead of claiming that the other editors somehow are personally involved, are biased, are colluding in a cabal, etc. The only places on Wikipedia where I would personally have a true conflict of interest would be certain specific technologies and Computer Science topics like software I've helped to write or maintain, protocols I helped to develop, etc. It'll be very difficult to advance serious evidence of a conflict of interest when these particular pages are a few among thousands on our watchlists ("You have 9,712 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).") The WikiProject Skepticism also has categories including articles tagged with it like Category:Skepticism articles by quality. Click on a subcategory then on the "related changes" link, that's another automatic watchlist. — Paleo Neonate  – 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

When I read WP:NOTHERE, I find this: "Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed;". I also understand that we must all be guided by something called "common sense", which is the basis of working together to accomplish worthwhile goals. It is this common sense aspect of working together to accomplish worthwhile goals that is difficult to resolve with the Darwinian hypothesis of "survival of the fittest". Darwin examined 'fitness' from a single point perspective. In seems that he saw self-service as the dominant driving force of life forms. If we all competed against one another for whatever resources were available, the result would be mass destruction and accumulated waste. Humans form governments to deal with issues of us annihilating one another and polluting ourselves into oblivion. Those who implement Darwinian competition as a life philosophy may have difficulty accepting the principle of symbiosis from time to time. This may be because they are expected to be symbiotic. When faith is placed in being serviced, providing service can be a challenge. I have written several works, and as a result of my research, learned much about things that work and things that don't work. The overwhelming issue that Darwin realized is the thing called 'existence'. Mere existence is the survival aspect that Darwin realized. Then there is 'thriving'. When presented with these two options, most people would inherently choose to thrive. Mere survival only involves existence, while thriving paints life with the colors of vibrancy.

It is my perception that WP wants to thrive - at least that is being verbalized consistently across all of what I have read here. I am the type of person who is willing to assist others in accomplishing a worthwhile goal. In the city I live in, the streets have been in bad repair since before I arrived. From time to time, I call city maintenance, and don't take "no" for an answer to getting the job done. Countless others drive down the streets on a daily basis and do nothing except dodge potholes. Maybe I'm different, but I see myself as performing some useful purpose even though no one else may know what I have done. It would be nice to get a "thank you" from time to time, but that is not the thing that drives me. You might classify what I do as being symbiotic. I help others. That is the only way to see others thrive in their lives. The city workers might not appreciate my insistence on their doing their jobs, but the work does get done. If everyone lived in this way, human civilization would only benefit in a great way. We are limited in our scope of investigation to this particular planet. There may be interstellar, inter-galactic, and inter-universal civilizations which are able to travel between stars, galaxies, and universes. This is speculation, but here we are on a single planet, unable to traverse the distance to the next closest star. Most people never consider the ramifications of our situation because they don't examine our situation objectively. If you ask a scientist about the problem of interstellar travel, they might throw technology at it, or they may inundate you with talk of 'worm-holes' (for which we have no feasible means of using). I see the answer within us.

When I was young, my parents bought a set of encyclopedias. I would sit and read them, along with our dictionary, in order to get an understanding of the world I live in. I wanted to accomplish something worthwhile, so I did what I could to gain the knowledge I would need to excel at tasks. The more I would read, the more I thirsted for knowledge. I began to appreciate the existence of those volumes of knowledge because they allowed me to get closer to the goal I wanted to achieve. This is what drives me to edit on WP. I appreciate the existence of rules, guidelines, and laws, but when there is good faith in the group setting, more can be accomplished than using any other paradigm. I am not here for a power grab. I am not here to promote any agenda other than to provide readers with the most fulfilling experience. Those who are lifted by my efforts might be so kind as to lift me if in need. My paradigm is symbiosis, even if I get nothing in return. Common sense dictates that if we all would live in a symbiotic way, we would all be one big thriving organism. We would have achieved "living together in harmony".

This is the thing I see missing at WP, at least with certain articles. It is as though someone has claimed ownership of the article, or have some patented intellectual technology that makes their thinking better than others. While I may have violated some rules or guidelines, I am no less confident in my abilities to improve the WP content. I only have a limited amount of time to devote to edits, which makes it frustrating when my efforts or communications are received with bad faith. Do you see the problem I am facing now? I edit in good faith, not just that I am providing a neutral POV, but that the direction I am going in will lead to the progress of others. What I see is warring in controversial areas. The war doesn't seem to be for improvement of the reader experience, but rather to lead readers in one direction as opposed to another. Promotion of an ideology could be aimed at proselytizing to Christianity or atheism. I have done neither, but I do see blocking the progress of developing articles due to what I can only imagine as an ideological meme. I truly believed that Admins were those who would assist in developing editors in their efforts to generate and improve articles here. It seems that some Admins are only here for the status or power they can wield in blocking what they perceive as personal ideologies. This is good when the ideology is unsound, but can limit the reader experience when common sense is tossed. My initial concern was over the treatment of the Michael Cremo article. Yet it is a "living biography", which has certain strict WP rules. As I see it, the living person is treated as a valuable entity, and as such, should be treated with the utmost respect. The opposition from editors monitoring the article in question had a dim view of Mr. Cremo, which came out in their talk section edits. The aversion to religion is not a paradigm which should be shared in the public venue. Neutrality would allow for the opposing view to have its space. A person should not be attacked because they have evidence that leads them in a direction: be it from what is called 'religion', or absence of the same. I am well aware of the war-like nature expressed by atheists. I am also well aware of organizations that make it a goal to attack all religions. This was the concern I expressed with development of articles in the pseudoscience path. While scientists may have a consensus on what science is, it is the study of nature: this thing we call material reality. to say that there is a consensus on a topic is similar to the scientist believing they have learned everything there is to know about a certain topic. In my studying the history of science, I did come across the notion that "all is known about electromagnetism". To me, this sounds like the pinnacle of accomplishments. If I then take out my measuring rod, and determine what is being done with the exhausted knowledge, I find that the statement may not be true at all, or the methodologies being employed don't truly reflect the fullest of knowledge. I see the same thing when developing articles and article transitions.

Labeling something as pseudoscience is meaningless, unless "real science" is able to take us to a place where we are not polluting our environment, or threatening one another with weapons of mass destruction. Scientists don't seem to have a consensus on such things, so it is inevitably up to the rest of us to "call the department responsible to take care of this long-standing problem". People have a tendency to say "There's nothing you can do about it. It's just the way it is". Innovators always look for ways to accomplish things the masses see as impossible, or incredibly difficult. To be blunt, I see people who promote or dwell on the impossible as "being in the way, or blocking, progress". This is not derogatory. If more editors (and it seems, Admins) understood that it is not the attack of ideologies or people that brings about progress, but the providing of the right information (balanced, of course) that will bring about the cogent thought processes leading to the right conclusions, then human civilization would benefit from access of the material they provide. This is what I see as the goal of WP. If this is what you meant by 'mainstream', then we are in total agreement. My recent request for COI disclosure was to determine whether there was anti-religious bias involved in article development. If an editor or Admin is associated with N.C.S.E., I can only see a bent towards atheism being involved in article development. Because science is being used as a tool and cloak to promote and hide atheism, the N.C.S.E. can be a particularly dangerous organization. Attacking religion has often morphed into attacking the individual in my years of corresponding with atheists. Any attempts I made towards reconciliation or appealing to reason were met with diversion and opposition. It is not that I hate atheists. I see them as potentially viable, productive persons. It is their propensity to attack anyone who either opposes or doesn't embrace their view that I disagree with. I have done an intensive study of comparative analysis between atheism and the Biblical literature I have been exposed to. It is somewhat difficult to trace the historical roots of atheism in terms of its personal and social value, so I primarily used the knowledge i was privy to from contemporary conversations on ideologies. These conversations should represent an adequate development of principles over the span of time since the existence of the atheistic ideology. Understand, that this even included critical analysis of such Biblical concepts as embodied in the question: "Why would a perfect being create man and subsequently allow him to be deceived: why did He not intervene on the part of this creature He created, if He cared about him?" Impartially, it would seem that either there is no Perfect Being, or that Perfection doesn't involve Altruism (I use capitals here to denote infinite attributes). I won't get into the details here, but suffice it to say that if atheism doesn't present a better outcome, then it is no improvement over any other ideology. It can only be the same, but not better. These personal judgments were not used in editing WP content. I have done my best to be impartial, yet it is assumed that I show partiality. An innocent man only has to fear investigation when the investigators are corrupt. I feel the actions being considered against me are unjustified. I am only trying to to the most that I possibly can with the time I have available.

If you, or any other editors or Admins, are affiliated with a radical atheist organization, I am expected to show concern over the implications. This is why I called for disclosure of the specific organization from those editing in the pseudoscience article path. Even so, I am convinced that such activity that I have seen could influence content creation and editing in other associated bodies of knowledge: pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, fringe science, etc. The common tactics I have experienced when dealing with radical atheists is to first "attempt to convert (proselytize) the opposition to the same view", then "shame the opposition into submission" used, effectively neutralizing any contributions they might make which are not in line with the paradigm. If this doesn't work, then I have seen the alternative of "annoy the opposition to the point of their leaving the forum altogether". It was often that I was addressed by random (?), various, editors who would only insert a snide comment and leave. This is not productive for article development, yet you have not made it clear to them inline. The way I see it, when Admins are doing their jobs properly, you should only see happy, productive activity here. Warring is the result of harbored anger and/or resentment, or the desire to obtain the possession of another. To date, I have not had a single "upper" ask me: "How may I assist you in making your edits more productive?" This may seem like an unproductive use of personal resources to some, but the overall result will be that editors will feel much better about contributing when they know that someone cares. From what I have ascertained, it is a parallel function of all WPdians to assist others in the progress of WP. I hope that I have provided enough information for you to understand why I am here, and what I am trying to achieve. If you maintain the position that I have no place among WP editors (at least, that is my perception), I will bow out, but will share my thoughts expressed here with someone who cares. I feel that my goals are in line with WP goals. I will attempt to find someone here who will at least listen to my concerns and try to understand them. This is not a threat. It is only expressing the depth of my concerns. I am totally willing to leave WP alone. That will allow me to devote my resources to things that will be more productive.

I have no problem with you reporting on my activities here. Yes, I will admit that I have made some mistakes, yet there is a problem that I can't effectively deal with on my own, and pushing the issue up higher will hopefully result in there being an action taken to improve the editorial environment, and hopefully, the development of WP. Sincerely.BRealAlways (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Atheists shouldn’t edit archaeology articles? Surely you aren’t suggesting that, but please make it clear you aren’t. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 13:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Should Christians edit archaeology articles? BRealAlways (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Where did that question come from? I have no idea what you're talking about. BRealAlways (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * But you wrote “ If you, or any other editors or Admins, are affiliated with a radical atheist organization, I am expected to show concern over the implications. This is why I called for disclosure of the specific organization from those editing in the pseudoscience article path. Even so, I am convinced that such activity that I have seen could influence content creation and editing in other associated bodies of knowledge: pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, fringe science, etc.” So perhaps you mean atheists can edit archaeology articles but not pseudoarchaeolog articles? And am I right that you are calling the NCSE a radical atheist organisation? Doug Weller  talk 18:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So what types of articles can Christians edit? BRealAlways (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And as a lifetime devout Christian and sometime lay preacher, I deeply and bitterly resent your idea that the N.C.S.E. is in any way an atheist organization, radical or otherwise. It is the vile, false and heretical doctrine that Christianity is in opposition to competent science that drives people away from the Throne, instead of gathering at His feet. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor I was talking about who may have had a COI in relation to NCSE is actually a proponent of theistic evolution, not an atheist. As for the allegation of a "radical atheist organization", it seems like a conspiracy theory as WP has editors from many backgrounds (I'm personally an agnostic).  "Radical" also seems over the top, even the most vocal proponents of the "New atheism" movement are not revolutionaries, terrorists or advocating for violence; they won't even knock on doors hoping to "convert" people and not even adhering to a fundamentalist creed of sorts...Since you were arguing about Scott and education-related articles, "attempt to convert (proselytize) the opposition to the same view" does this mean that you also believe that non-corrupted biology and astronomy education in schools is proselytizing?  It also doesn't prevent theology and moral and religion courses, it doesn't prevent people to go to church or to be raised in a particular faith at home.  When I say uncorrupted scientific education, I mean one that doesn't insert faith-based uncertainty statements against facts or the scientific consensus in biology curricula.  Because this is a well documented issue, with books having been written about it, relevant Wikipedia articles also exist, including Scopes Trial, Wedge strategy...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug W.. An example of a radical Christian organization might be the followers of Jim Jones, or David Koresh. The difference I see between a Christian and a radical Christian is essentially the same between an atheist and a radical atheist. I would want no radicals to have an influence on our daily affairs, but the very nature of their emotional commitment dictates that they affect others somehow. The effect is usually bad, or very bad. Radicals always express bias into their environments (ideological, or otherwise). That is why they are called 'radicals'. I have had some very informative conversations with atheists. The same is not true of radical atheists.

User:Orangemike, you must be kidding. I would appreciate you not making the attempt to play me for a fool in my talk space.

User:PaleoNeonate, Three strikes and you're out. You can write all of the books you want. It won't prove that you know everything. It seems as though you want me to tell you how I truly feel about evolution theory, and the scientific paradigms that followed. I can do that, but I won't tell you everything. Suffice it to say that if evolution theory truly were "a fact", as the N.C.S.E. monotonously repeats, it wouldn't need the advertising campaigns seen here and elsewhere, or appeals to court. The repetition of nonsense doesn't magically make it any less nonsensical. Court appeals are usually a response to rejection where evolution theory is concerned. Forcing something that is rejected on those who reject it is a totalitarian move, and a mistake, when the rejected material is in the form of a scientific ideology. A person (or a people) can choose to reject any ideology presented to them. You can say that evolution theory is not an ideology, but that doesn't change what it is. One must believe in evolution as given because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (to use a currently accepted paradigm). Evolution theory is not scientific because (as I have previously stated) it is neither verifiable, nor repeatable. Consider the issue of common descent with respect to natural selection. If (as Darwin says) all life is the product of natural selection and random variation, all biological entities are by definition, nonrepeatable. There will never be a duplicated set of environmental conditions that led to human existence, let alone, the existeence of our solar system, given a different set of starting conditions. Consider that Einstein's field equations are an initial value problem. Randomness dictates non-repeatability. That is not what we see. There are nested and concatenated orders where biological life is concerned. Whether scientists buy into a paradigm such as evolution theory is a matter of choice. So be it. I have no intention to enter into a debate on the issue. Suffice it to say that I have shared some of my views with you. Any further attempts to open this dialog will be an indicator that you would lack respect for my person. Thank you. BRealAlways (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As you say, nonsense repeated is still nonsense. Like the old canard you repeat that scientists claim ypthat the theory of evolution is a fact. They don’t. There’s the theory of evolution, which I’ve never heard called “evolution theory” and there’s the facts used to develop the theory. Doug Weller  talk 07:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Evolution is both a fact and a theory." Copied from NIH article "Science and evolution". Good enough for your purposes, or are you saying the content was not posted by scientists? Darwinian evolution is not a theory. It is a religious ideology - that which must be believed, the object of faith. But this is not good enough for some. Consider how many times Darwin uses the terms "I think", and "I believe", or some derivative thereof in "On the Origin of Species". The number gets close to 100. Perhaps you are saying I'm dishonest. There is another paper on the same site: "The three limitations of Darwin's theory concern the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the cell, and the paucity of transitional species. Because of these limitations, the author predicts a paradigm shift away from evolution to an alternative explanation". The list of limitations is incomplete. Evolution theory is on the way towards swift and sure deprecation. I simply realized it before the fact. BRealAlways (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In case they could serve, will leave a few links that have citations to other sources: evidence of common descent, evolution as fact and theory, list of transitional fossils, list of human evolution fossils, scientific theory (vs hypothesis or "just a theory"), models like the theory of evolution, modern synthesis, etc, were built to explain the observed evidence, formulate explanations for it, ways to make predictions and ground to formulate more hypotheses and test them, etc. https://books.google.com/?id=-LIvDwAAQBAJ is a good book by Prothero on the topic, but I also recommend standard biology school textbooks like Campbell's biology: https://books.google.com/books?id=nghOAQAAIAAJ ; also nice is Earth's Deep History ( https://books.google.com/books?id=vY2RBAAAQBAJ ) that is written by a Christian, BTW, but also one qualified to write about the history of geology and deep time.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And of course, this is not an attempt to indoctrinate me into an ideology I have clearly stated I am not interested in. BRealAlways (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate, I have already stated that I am not interested in a debate. I am not interested in being converted to an ideology either. I will humor this last attempt to "convince" me that evolution has merit, but only as an exercise in understanding. You obviously seem to have not read the resources you cite carefully. Specifically, Scientific theory, "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge". Once a theory is accepted into scientific knowledge", it becomes a 'law'. One example of this transition is "The Laws of Motion". Evolution theory will never make it to this phase for reasons I stated above regarding falsifiability, testability, and validation of hypotheses. One (or possibly the best) way to measure the efficacy of a theory (or one of its hypotheses) is to see the benefits of its use. There seems to be no corresponding, "Earth shattering" application of evolution theory which passes the efficacy in application test. If you wanted to convince me to accept evolution theory as a valid paradigm (which I suggest you do not), you should have a shopping list of benefits from the application of evolution theory to situations in the realm of discourse (material reality, versus some esoteric musing). Are we done now? BRealAlways (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We should be. I can't decide if you are trolling or are truly ignorant of how science works. A scientific theory never becomes a law. Our articles on Newton's and Euler's laws of motion should be enough to make that clear. So please, just go away from talk pages. Either edit or find another interest. Doug Weller  talk 08:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A common misconception yes, — Paleo Neonate  – 08:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So you say you don't want a debate but have been urging for one all along as we were telling you WP was not for that. — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am asking one last time for both of you (User:PaleoNeonate and User:Doug Weller to refrain from using my talk page as a forum for discussing material that has nothing to do with WP goals. This is my user talk page, not yours. If you prefer to use your personal talk pages to continue discussions concerning non-productive material to WP, then you have that option. Please stop filling up my user talk space with unwanted edits. You are both violating WP guidelines, and you know it. BRealAlways (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, but we aren't breaking guidelines for user talk pages, you're thinking of article talk pages. There's a big difference. Doug Weller  talk 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Paleo Neonate  – 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize, but had only read the entirety of the information after editing my request. I wanted to add that I will watch my editing so that there are no more disruptions of talk pages. BRealAlways (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one open request at a time is needed, subsequent comment may be standard, unformatted comments. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note that my goal was not to debate evolution, more trying to explain that Wikipedia, aiming to be a mainstream encyclopedia, cannot promote pseudoscience (pseudoarchaeology, creationist arguments like flood geology, ID, etc). There are clear policies that have been linked, including the fact that sources are not all considered equal.  I remember once or twice refuting some misconceptions about science on this user talk page (like about what a scientific theory is).  It was somewhat predictable days prior that some administrative action would eventually be necessary (not because of discussions on this talk page but on article ones as well as the misplaced assumptions of conflict of interest and frivolous related accusations).  And ultimately, other editors received your sudden request to stop using Wikipedia as a forum, when you were the persistent instigator of those threads.  I perceived this as trolling then filed the report.  If it was a statement that you were moving-on, it was awkwardly formulated.In any case, as 331dot said blocks are not necessarily forever and are to prevent disruption.  If there are other topics you would like to edit or a project you intend to work on that would improve the encyclopedia, I recommend to specify that in your next unblock request.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)