User talk:Frrobthart

Welcome!

Hello, Frrobthart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

December 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Intelligent design has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Intelligent design was changed by Frrobthart (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867757 on 2014-12-02T22:54:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Intelligent design, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. – Gilliam (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article must be as neutral as possible citing secular reliable sources. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.– Gilliam (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Rey from Frrobthart: Right! So I am supposed to believe that that appalling hatchet job, with all its inaccuracies, is neutral. It is biased and misleading.


 * Well it is a WP:FA (as denoted by the star in the right corner).– Gilliam (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC).

Reply: What a pity. No wonder educated people always warn ... well, never mind.

edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Stop
What you mean is Theistic evolution, not Intelligent Design. We have a separate article for that. Stop reinserting that sentence or you will very likely get blocked for edit warring. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  02:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply: MOST Intelligent Design proponents believe in theistic evolution. Why are you misleading the readers with this lawyer's brief of an an article?
 * Intelligent design -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:07, 3 December 2014 (UT

Reply: The opinion expressed at that link is uninformed. I prefer to let people describe their own beliefs. That includes the proponents of ID, who generally believe in theistic evolution. The Wikipedia article on ID is nothing more than an argument to mislead the reader into failing to make an accurate distinction between. ID proponents and creationists. As such it is a public disservice.

A college student, a Freshman, might cite Wikipedia as a source in a paper - but never a second time.
 * Of course they should not. Encyclopedias, be they Britannica or Wikipedia, are not reliable sources. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

heads up
You seem to be new here, and you don't appear to understand the "rules" very well, much less the spirit that informs them. I just want to give you a heads up that it is very very unwise to jump straight into a "hot editing" as you are doing.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. In the coming days you are going to see replying to you with all kinds of abbreviations in capital letters that are hyperlinked -- they are generally links to these PAG that govern how we operate).  Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west -  a truly ugly place.   But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it.  One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering")   The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various "drama boards" and administrative tools we have to resolve disputes, but their spirit -  the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place can be. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!).

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.

People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments.

So really, there is a lot to learn, and my advice to you is slow down, be more humble and open, and learn how we operate. By being so combative before you understand the policies and guidelines, you are setting yourself up for a miserable time here, and will likely burn out and leave (and frustrate a bunch of other editors in the meantime). Big, unhappy waste of time for everybody.

With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!)
 * WP:SPA - please read this - right now your account is what we call a "single purpose account")
 * WP:NPOV a key content policy that covers "neutral point of view".  This does not mean what most people think it means if they don't read it!
 * No original research - you can't just make things up, or write whatever you think. We edit here, we don't author anything.   By editing, this means that we rely on what experts in the field say. And indeed.....
 * WP:VERIFY is another key content policy - everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable via citations to reliable sources for expert discussions of the ideas we are describing... (not just in any blog!) We really aspire to be scholarly here.
 * WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define.  But we figure things out by talking to one another.  CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests.   So please talk - please never edit war (see warning above).  If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page.  Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to.  Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions.   Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection.  If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. And really, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2024
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Shroud of Turin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Without that information the article is misleading and incomplete. Perhaps you prefer misinformation. Frrobthart (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And the reference is to a Wikipedia article you ding dong! Frrobthart (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:CIRCULAR: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Shroud of Turin, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)