User talk:Farsight001

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin Patterson Reference
On what basis do you have the right to decide that my reference is "not a valid external source"? It's pertinent to the subject matter. Stop censoring the content to favor your personal viewpoints. Kanbei85 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

First of all, if the outside references "must be directly about the subject", then please explain how the reference to ARN, which you didn't touch, has anything to do with the subject? Why can the article discuss side issues (like the quote), but then references cannot?

Furthermore, why is Access Research Network deemed "acceptable" while creation.com is not? Why can the creationism page be full of references to the most well-known atheist website on the web, Talk Origins? What you're propagating is nothing more than a double standard. If your concern was merely for alphabetization, then rather than deleting the reference, how about putting it in the correct order? Stop putting up a smokescreen and admit you're censoring me- or correct what you did. Kanbei85 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church
I see that you are well-versed in edit warring and personal attacks, so I will make this very clear to you. I am replacing the edit that I made and asking for consensus. I am warning you: do not remove my contributions until consensus is reached, or I will have to add a few more warnings to the dozens already present on this page. Go with God. ~LL~ (talk) (requests) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Catholic Church. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''I am very bold in my editing, I reverted your edit because it was not constructive, and I started a voting process on the talk page. I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and I am a trusted user with two permissions to show for it. I will ask you this once as politely as possible: do not start an edit war with me.'' ~LL~ (talk) (requests)  05:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.
 * Fake warnings from people unfamiliar with wikipedia policy do not scare me. You can see the dozens of them above.  The next step they always go for is to report me to someone and then THEY get blocked because they're the ones violating policy, just as you are.  Check thyself before thy wreck thyself.Farsight001 (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

By 'scientific consensus' you mean your opinion?
Is this what usually happens? I join wikipeida and then I have you following me around deleting my edits on the grounds of supposed 'scientific consensus' even though I've cited scholarly sources. You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The source you cited was Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened," which rejects mainstream science's understanding of the universe. You cannot seriously pretend that Lerner alone is the totality of scientific consensus.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is clear - that Farsight is deleting edits with reference to a supposed 'scientific consensus' without making reference to what that consensus is. He's claiming the mantle of defender of the scientific consensus without having any intention of setting out what that consensus is. Is this how wikipedia usually works?


 * I'm not pretending Lerner alone is the totality scientific consensus. I'll add more sources to demonstrate there's other opinions besides his. But I can guess what will happen - you'll just change the goalposts to find another reason to object to any reference to the age of voids in the article, right?


 * You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean you open a new thread at Talk:Big Bang, stating "At the moment this is a heavily biased article about a scientific theory. The Big Bang is a theory only". That's enough to get any sensible editor alarmed. Any editor who then takes a look at your edit-history at Void (astronomy), sees that your very first edit there was reversed. Getting curious, one sees that you're using this article as a WP:COATRACK for 'anti-scientific' "arguments." Supercluster? Idem dito. And then you come complaining here because we don't buy this kind of thing. So, this statement above,
 * "You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?"
 * is cheap rhetorics, as you know yourself. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wiki-policies, and don't use it as an faith-propaganda bulletin board.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive
Hi Farsight001. I've taken the liberty to create an archive for you, and added MiszaBot, for automatic archiving. The far-sight at this talkpage got obscured by the large amount of threads. MiszaBot is now set at rachiving when there are more than ten threas at the page. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck
with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodcarl (talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)