User talk:Quartus81

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. - Also note the policy wp:3RR, Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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. - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ben (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You nearly got blocked for WP:3RR. You will be blocked for edit warring if you continue to revert on creation. You cannot edit from the POV that As it happens, the Bible is the inspired Word of God, whether you believe it or not, and as He WAS there at the time, by your own definition the word "account" is correct. Read Hobbes: the religious power must be subservient to the civil power William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm not the one "edit warring". Neither am I editing from POV quoted. What has happened, which should be painfully obvious, is that, having seen the text stating as fact that the Hebrew creation story is a "myth", I changed it to something less offensive and contentious. I understand that the majority hold the OPINION that Biblical Creation is a myth but that does not give them the right to state it as "fact".

user DVdm accuses me of breaking Wikipedia's rules by correcting "myth" to something less open to debate and for abusing the system. It is clear to me that it is DVdm who is the guilty party. I am advised that "A contribution you made to Creation appears to carry a non-neutral point of view". By changing "myth" to "account"???? COME ON!! By calling Genesis a "myth" you are making a judgement and, by very definition, this is not neutral.

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Creation" - explaining in the "edit summary" field why I've changed a non-neutral, judgmental word is "personal analysis"? So is changing it back to the contentious and very wrong "myth" - yet that seems to be allowed. Hypocrisy, anyone?

There is sufficient evidence available in all fields of science to support (although not quite prove) the Biblical account and to cast doubt on the THEORY of evolution (itself held by many to be a myth), which means it is not acceptable to use the word "myth" in this Wikipedia entry. This is perhaps not the time or place to discuss this evidence, although I am happy to do so if you want. One thing is very clear - the word "myth" IS to be removed.

--Quartus81 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." - I respectfully suggest that DVdm and Ben are also guilty of repeatedly reverting edits and they have certainly made no attempt to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors".

--Quartus81 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A few short more or less behaviour-related remarks:
 * Regarding your phrase "This is perhaps not the time or place to discuss this evidence, although I am happy to do so if you want.", indeed the Wikipedia is not that place, as you will read in the links you find on top of this page.


 * Regarding your phrase "One thing is very clear - the word "myth" IS to be removed.", please be aware that, to some people, this could sound like a threat, even if you only meant it to be a demand or perhaps a promise. You will probably notice that generally none of these are considered welcome here.


 * Regarding your phrase "... have certainly made no attempt to "use the talk page...", perhaps you missed my most recent attempts on the talk page in question.


 * You will find some subject-related remarks on the article's talk page. - DVdm (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (re-inserted closing part of my message above. Added indentatin below - DVdm (talk))


 * The article's main page certainly isn't the place but I should have thought the talk page would have been suitable - how else are contributors supposed to reach agreement on acceptable, NEUTRAL, factual wording?


 * I'm stating that this offensive judgement is to be removed. You're implying that it is to stay.  Same difference - except that it seems to be alright for you to do it, but not for me.


 * I've seen your comments on the relevant talk page. The links you quote prove my point - the most commonly acceptable meaning of the word is to describe a fantasy or a figment of imagination, story without factual basis.  Based on the evidence available in various science disciplines, it is clear that "myth" is the wrong word to use. You have failed to suggest any alternative to this arbitrary use of the word "myth".    I look forward to being able to put the "myth" word on the Evolution page! After all, based on the evidence available in various science disciplines, it seems that "myth" is the most appropriate word to use on that article....
 * Quartus81 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A few more remarks:
 * Please don't remove parts of my messages? Thanks.
 * Regarding your phrase "I'm stating that this offensive judgement is to be removed", please note that such statements are not likely to be appreciated here, just like threats, demands and promises.
 * Regarding your phrase "... describe a fantasy or a figment of imagination, story without factual basis.", please note that the first meaning you find in the dictionary links I provided, is "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." (empasis mine). You see that this neatly covers all possible viewpoints and respects all possible religious and a-religious views, even if you would happen to take the creation of the cosmos in 7 days by your god as fact.
 * Regarding your phrase "I look forward to being able to put the "myth" word on the Evolution page!", again, to some people this might sound like a threat/demand/promise. Do be careful with that. Other than that, please have a more careful read of the articles on science and theories. I can appreciate that a deeply religious person like yourself has problems with these, but I don't think I can help you there. You will have to educate yourself in these matters. I can only point to some useful information, like for instance Karl Popper, and as was suggested before, Thomas Hobbes.
 * A lot to read there... Enjoy! - DVdm (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)