User talk:Clarkpaton

Clarkpaton, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

October 2015
Hello, I'm Darx9url. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Elizabeth Warren, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I do hope this was a joke, in which case, please don't add jokes like this to Wikipedia. Darx9url (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

April 2016
I suggest that you read WP:RS/AC and WP:LEDE. You are expected to abide by them in all your Wikipedia edits. Don't change the meaning of verifiable information without citing reliable sources to that extent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, to say, but we have a name for things like "The traditional, and more accepted view of the origin of Daniel, is that it was written by the prophet himself substantially as it exists today, that the prophecy is historically reliable, and that its predictions are supernatural and accurate." We call them WP:CB. This is because historians work with methodological naturalism and will never assert supernatural causation. That is a theological claim, not a claim that may be safely made by historians who live by publish or perish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read WP:TALK and re-read WP:CB. Most of what you say above falls outside the norms as stated in the former and is discussed in great length in the latter.  I merely corrected the obvious errors to indicate that many reputable scholars are in disagreement with the assertions of a late date for Daniel.  Your personal views to the contrary are immaterial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkpaton (talk • contribs)


 * Well, well, you are new to Wikipedia and strangely familiar with WP:TALK. Anyone having enjoyed higher education should be familiar with methodological naturalism, namely that it is a ground rule of all sciences, including historical scholarship (regardless of whether we count it or not as a science). What I meant is: it is completely bollocks for a historian to posit supernatural causation in a peer-reviewed article which is not preaching to the choir of true believers. That's why there aren't any historical treatises aiming to prove that Vespasian was truly a god, or that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits, or over the involvement of elves and fairies in World War II combats, and so on down the slippery slope towards the loony bin of weird and unsubstantiated metaphysical claims. So I did not claim that it would be WP:CB as a theological claim, since theology isn't a science and obviously does not abide by methodological naturalism. I have only claimed that for a historical claim it perfectly fits WP:CB, since no historian in the right mind would submit for peer review articles blatantly violating methodological naturalism. That would be as bad as claiming that a circle is a triangle. It is simply not done for scholars, and Wikipedia sides with scholars, therefore it is unfit as a historical claim inside Wikipedia. It is not merely my own view, I suggest that you read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/ for filling the gaps on post-Enlightenment historical scholarship and why historians could never claim supernatural occurences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Book of Daniel seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to Book of Daniel that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Book of Daniel, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Book of Daniel. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Book of Daniel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Book of Daniel. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Book of Daniel 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Book of Daniel, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The only one engaged in an edit war, sir, is you. I made clear, well-sourced changes in good faith, which were promptly changed due to your own particular bias.  Unless an editor can literally cite the corpus of modern scholarship on the Book of Daniel, it is not correct to say something like "modern scholarship consensus" or state categorically the dating of a book of the Bible. In fact, in most cases, the sources cited are singular in nature and reflect a specific liberal theological view that the vast majority of Christians (though not scholars, I'll grant you) would reject. My views are in no way "fringe," and though they might possibly reflect a minority viewpoint in some respects, this in no way warrants their complete rejection, nor does it warrant your somewhat cavalier, condescending, dismissive remarks.  Finally, your own mastery of Wikipedia protocol, though I'm sure it's fascinating, hardly makes you an expert on the Book of Daniel.Clarkpaton (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The first assertion is wrong: only in the discussed article you have been already reverted by two established editors. As I told you before, you are expected to abide by WP:RS/AC, that is the way Wikipedians know what the academic consensus is upon a particular subject. You should not water down the manifest academic consensus, just because you feel that you would be an expert on the subject. Wikipedia is not a democracy so it does not matter what most Christians think about the Book of Daniel. It matters what most scholars think about it. Besides, I can assure you, most Christians have never read the Bible and you cannot expect them to hold to biblical inerrancy viewpoints upon any given theological problem. You are welcome to discuss your changes at Talk:Book of Daniel, but we already know what the academic consensus is, we know it from reliable sources written by top scholars, tenured at reputable universities and published by reputable publishing houses. There isn't much you could change about that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice try. There is no "academic consensus" on the dating of Daniel. Merely stating it and citing a source that states it is hardly a proof. Trying to bully me with your "established editor" mumbo jumbo hardly settles this issue. There are just as many "early daters" as there are "late daters" in the scholarly world, and an early dating of Daniel was sourced in several of my changes (all of which I believe were summarily changed). No, there is no consensus on this issue by "top scholars, tenured at reputable universities and published by reputable publishing houses," no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Internal evidence in Daniel itself, longstanding tradition, the appearance of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls as Scripture so soon after a supposed 3rd or 2nd Century date (which would hardly be likely), all argue for a much earlier date for this book. Trying to brush aside this issue and deleting my suggested edits by asserting that "there is broad academic consensus" smacks of intellectual dishonesty.Clarkpaton (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, calling my input a "fringe theory" appears to be designed to shut off debate. Calling a late date for Daniel a "fringe theory" is tantamount to comparing it with astrology, denial of the Holocaust or Bigfoot, and appears to be pejorative and punitive in nature, neither of which are worthy of a longstanding Wikipedia editor. If you have specific suggestions for changes with my edits, then let's discuss them. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, I would think that would have been the first thing you did.Clarkpaton (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. cheers Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Your recent editing 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I note that you have already violated the three revert rule at Book of Daniel. In fact, I count that you are currently at 6RR (within 24 hours). This would go to WP:AN3 immediately, but I do not have the time to pursue this now, but I will check back tomorrow. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)