User talk:ThomasJamesGodfrey

Welcome!
Hello, ThomasJamesGodfrey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Book of Joshua did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your friendly welcome and offer of assistance, which I may well need. On the reason my recent edits were reverted by Editor2020, I don't think it had anything to do with a violation of our verifiability policy as far as Editor2020 was concerned. On the other hand, the edit summary was both vague and too terse to be helpful. I already began the process of resolving this on the editor's talk page. Please review what I said there (section 13) and let me know if you recommend another approach, this edit being the one in dispute. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do this: User:Editor2020}} the editor will know you've mentioned him. Just linking the username does nothing. I've said there that it all needs to go to the talk page. Editor2020 is a good edit and like me has a large [[WP:WATCHLIST. It's not always possible to give a full explanation in an edit summary. Anyway, the article talk page is the place to discuss it. Doug Weller  talk 14:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. However, I am surprised that the square brackets are unmatched on the right, and the curly brackets are unmatched on the left.  Are you sure you gave me the correct syntax?  It might help to use it properly in your reply but addressed to me.  And by the way, I should be waiting for you to add a section to the talk page where you raise your verifiability issue, right? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agh, no, I didn't, square brackets both sides. I've just wasted time reverting about 30 vandalised articles and don't have time to add a section, and really I think you should. Doug Weller  talk 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I'll test your tip now User:Doug Weller.  Thanks too for all of your work on reverting vandalism.  I had no idea this was such a big problem. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Aardsma is not a reliable source
Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that fringe authors such as Aardsma need to be handled with great care. If his views on a lost millennium have been discussed in mainstream sources it's possible that they could be used via those sources, but that would still require WP:CONSENSUS. Otherwise they aren't significant per WP:UNDUE.

There's another issue. Your text "However, scholarly doubts about the historicity of Joshua and speculation about its origin depend on a contested belief that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE" would have to be sourced to a source stating that explicitly. Please read no original research.

Minor point - all scholarship should be academic, thus "academic scholarship" is redundant.

If you wish to discuss your edits further, please use the article talk page so that everyone interested can see them. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearly explaining your own issue regarding verifiability. As you recommended, I plan to pursue further discussion of this on the article talk page. Please allow me time to update it. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Doug Weller Is there any way for you to move this section, which you created, over to the Book of Joshua article talk page? I did offer to update the talk page earlier, agreeing that our discussion belongs over there, and you already told me that I should be the one to create the section, but on second thought, it seems to me to be better for an editor who has an issue to create a section where it can be discussed.  I don't have any issue with my own edits, of course, but frankly, I am too new here to claim to be familiar with the proper etiquette.  If you are sure it is best for me to create the section over there, I'll do it, no matter how odd it may seem to be.


 * I suppose I face the same problem with User:Editor2020. I hesitate to create a new section for that other issue too.  For all I know, Editor2020 has no interest in discussing the decision to revert my edits.  I am only guessing, but it might be just a case of thoughtlessly reverting without any reason that can be defended with confidence in a rational discussion.  Otherwise, it seems to me that Editor2020 should show some determination by creating the section with the original edit summary expanded enough to allow the real issues to be properly considered and discussed. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not up to me to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, it is up to you. You made a change and now you need to attempt to support your change and convince the other interested editors that you edit should stand. Editor2020 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:ThomasJamesGodfrey I have started a discussion on the articles Talk page. Please post your comments there. Please WP:Assume good faith. Editor2020 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Editor2020 Okay. Done.  Thanks. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Doug Weller I dispute the claim in the title of this section. If you stand by it, please repeat it on the article talk page along with your reason for it.  Editor2020 already created a new section over there, where our discussion belongs, in full view of the community interested in the article.  Of course, you also have an option to repudiate the claim because you already realize that it is bogus. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing tips
As a new editor you might want want to avoid controversial edits or arguing reverts of your edits until you get more acquainted with the Wikipedia way of doing things. You will be referred to a lot of editing guidelines and policies. Read them. Some of them are useful, some not so much, but they are what we have. Try to avoid WP:WIKILAWYERING. Most of all, get used to being reverted. You will be, a lot. Its not a personal insult, it is just the way Wikipedia works. Attempt to work cooperatively with the other editors and always WP:Assume good faith, as most editors are interested in improving Wikipedia. Some have an WP:agenda, many are just WP:VANDALS and WP:TROLLS, but they usually get tired and go away. Remember, its not life or death, its just Wikipedia. Editor2020 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Hi ThomasJamesGodfrey. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your friendly welcome and helpful thoughts on starting out as a new editor. That's what I am, all right.  So far, only two of my sets of edits have been reverted, and they are very similar.  Maybe this means I have mostly avoided contentious topics.  I did not anticipate that any of my work would be on a contentious topic.


 * This brings up a question that came to mind when I read your welcome comment. Was it a routine welcome (one that you give to lots of new editors), or did you write it specifically for me because you had noticed problems or possible problems with my work in particular?  Anyway, thanks again. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a welcome that I've written for editors that I see straying into the areas of Wikipedia where even experienced editors have difficulties. It's something that I wish someone had told me when I was starting as an editor. --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this nice summary. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your posts at Talk:Book of Joshua
Hi, ThomasJamesGodfrey. You are apparently aware that you talk too much, but you don't seem to have much intuition for when you have talked enough. Please stop posting about (=directly and indirectly promoting) the theories of Gerald Aardsma at Talk:Book of Joshua. Despite the inordinate number of words you have spent there, nobody agrees with you, and everybody's tired of your sealioning questions. (Example: " Who shares the idea that doubts about the historicity of Joshua could be based on a study of irrelevant evidence, dated even to the wrong millennium? Your not knowing about anyone (who shares it) is no proof that the correct answer is no one, right?") Did you click on Sealioning when Tgeorgescu gave you a link to it yesterday? If not, why not? You have failed to listen to what experienced users tell you, and it looks to me like you have worn them out. If you seriously feel a need to talk more about Aardsma's theories, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard or the fringe theories noticeboard. I make two different suggestions because nobody but you can decide which noticeboard is best for your purposes. In any case, please realize that you have spent enough words at Talk:Book of Joshua, and have come to the end of the patience people have shown you as a new user. As you have repeatedly been told, the talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, not for any other purpose. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC).


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your action. I agree to end my participation in both discussions related to Gerald Aardsma at Talk:Book of Joshua.  I have no interest in taking my concerns to either noticeboard you suggested, but I assume that I am still welcome to participate civilly in any further discussion that may follow in section 14 of the same page.


 * I actually tried to bring the Gerald Aardsma discussion to a close through a summary comment (14:58, 18 May), but that effort failed. The editor who had started it then started (22:56, 18 May) a separate but related discussion.  My eagerness to participate with detailed comments probably was a factor, but the failure to close may not have been entirely my fault.  We are all free to drop out of any discussion at will.


 * You asked me questions. I assume that it is okay for me to answer them and to defend myself against your charges that I dispute.  I plead guilty to talking too much.


 * You also charged me with failing to listen to what experienced users tell me. I plead not guilty to this charge, but if you provide a specific example, I may need to stand corrected.


 * Yes, I did click on the Sealioning link that Tgeorgescu had given me. I read the article, decided that the insinuation was groundless in my case, and ignored it to be civil and avoid unnecessary detail, assuming in good faith that it was an innocent mistake.  Thanks for providing one example for consideration.


 * You quoted two questions found in the first one of only two comments I wrote for the addressed editor. Sealioning is supposed to involve "persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions."  I think a who question is a request for information, not evidence, and this one was never repeated.  Its context shows that it should be interpreted as a rhetorical question triggered by the statement, "Mr Ardsma is entitled to his opinion, but it seems to be shared by absolutely nobody."  The second question you quoted should be interpreted as an obviously true statement with only an incidental request for confirmation, not a demand for either information or evidence.  I don't see how your example fits the definition of sealioning.  Only one editor ever complained about it to me, and then only at the end our discussion in a three-word sentence without any example. You may have a better example to prove guilt, and if so, I am willing to consider it, but in the meantime, I plead not guilty to the charge of sealioning.


 * I understand that the talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, and this was my goal from the start, but it was evidently not the purpose of those two troublesome sections. Since they were started by another editor, I do not feel totally responsible for selection of their topic or direction.  Unfortunately, a sort of me/them atmosphere developed, with free and ample participation by other editors, some apparently passionate about their own position.  I joined in to defend mine with confidence and civility.  In hindsight, maybe this was a mistake, but it was made in good faith. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This morning, I discovered that the same editor who started the two troublesome sections discussed above has now added a third section on a related topic. In the spirit of my previous comment here, I agree not to contribute comments to that section either.  What is the best way to respond to this situation?


 * In the new section, the editor ignores part of my quoted challenge, the part about Bryant G. Wood. To address the rest of it, he essentially repeats a point made at the start of the oldest section on the topic (third paragraph, last sentence), without repeating or addressing my reply to this point in my first response there (05:23, 10 May).  Search for This much is quite true to find the start of it.


 * I don't think it is right to mislead talk page readers by leaving the impression that the point advanced in this newest section has never been countered. Can you somehow add a reference to my initial reply to it?  You may have better ideas for civilly addressing this issue.


 * I see that another editor added what was evidently considered an answer to my question. I consider it a misleading answer to a different question, but I am leaving it unchallenged too, as agreed.  A third editor contributed a detailed, interesting comment that naturally calls for a response from me, but I am ignoring it.  Can you politely inform other editors that those discussions where I have been muzzled are now closed?  I am respectfully trusting your judgment. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an admin, I'm a little unhappy about discussing users by name on article talkpages (such as discussing you). But I understand your frustration, and since you ask me to, I'll have a go. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC).


 * I just reviewed what you did over at Talk:Book of Joshua, and I am completely satisfied. Well done.  Thanks. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Editors interested in the Talk:Book of Joshua article are evidently reluctant to accept the ceasefire you requested, but that's okay with me. I agree not to participate in any related discussions that may follow, including the one in the new fourth section on the talk page.  It was recently added for continuation on a tangent that I never intended to pursue in detail.  They can have the last word in an echo chamber.  I am happy, but I would like to point out, at least here on my own talk page, that I regard those late comments as unbalanced and misleading.  Arguments that could be made for an alternative point of view are not well covered there.  I'm ready to consider other edits to improve the article. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, there's not actually a new section, just a couple of comments at existing sections (including the one I closed). Never mind, I hope those are just the tail end. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC).


 * Even the tail ends may all be finished now, in all four of the sections for discussions under the ceasefire (those numbered 15 through 18, with section 17 being the newest). ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You evidently did not object to continuing the discussion in the old section 14, currently reorganized as subsection 4.1. I appeal to you to negotiate with  for a reopening of that one subsection.  For background on its surprise closure, please review the new "May 2019" section below. I am open to any suggestion you may have for me to address this puzzling situation better.  ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Book of Joshua have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Book of Joshua 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  – 10:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel bitten (WP:BITE). Thanks for your polite attempt to provide constructive criticism, but frankly, it did me more harm than good.  It left the lasting impression on my talk page that I recently used "talk pages such as Book of Joshua for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics" without providing any specific example of this.


 * I fully intend to use talk pages properly, but your vague warning left me no way to know what exactly I did wrong and no guidance on what I might do in the future to improve my compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Referring me to the lengthy, general article here is not helpful either.  If you believe my behavior as a Wikipedia editor needs correction in multiple areas, you could pick out one or two most urgently in need of my attention.  As it is, I am clueless.


 * More importantly, I also feel bitten because of your recent, untimely, misleading reorganization of sections at Talk:Book of Joshua, evidently started by . I say untimely because old references to those sections above are now obfuscated, and links to them are broken.  Worse yet, they are misleading.  Your revision to include the old section 14 with the newer sections was particularly hurtful and egregious, whether you realized it or not.  I still assume good faith, even in this case, but this change (with the edit summary "Oops, this should have been included as well") reflects a deep misunderstanding of section 14 content.


 * The discussion in the old section 14 has absolutely nothing to do with discussions in any of the newer sections, the only connection between them being that all of them were related to some aspect of complex edits I made nearly three weeks ago. Besides this, hatting the whole misleadingly titled top level section prematurely halted discussion of a reverted change to improve the article.  As far as I am concerned, this discussion is in full compliance with Wikipedia policy (WP:BRD).


 * had already called for a ceasefire on discussions in the newer sections (21:47, 19 May 2019). I promptly agreed to accept it (02:24, 20 May), specifically requesting that the old section 14 be exempted.  I have faithfully respected this agreement ever since.  Other editors ceased their participation too, one late contribution (23:57, 20 May) being the last, not counting a late comment (10:07, 26 May) that "sections like this just encourage offtopic discussions."  In other words, your action not only "closed" discussions in four sections where they had already been closed nearly a week earlier but also closed discussion in an unrelated fifth section without any obvious rationale for the action.


 * Your statement of the consensus (10:36, 26 May) is consistent with the one I had proposed more than a week earlier (14:58, 18 May) in the section that you misleadingly titled "Proposed text." The old section title was much better, because its focus was on objections to a source I had cited in my reverted edits.  In the first paragraph of my first comment in that section, I agreed to withdraw the text I had proposed earlier in my reverted edits.  From that point on, the discussion grew inordinately long, but it had practically nothing to do with any proposed text.  Unfortunately, your late consensus statement is irrelevant to the discussion that ought to continue, since it has practically nothing to do with a choice of source to be cited.


 * Please either undo the reorganization or otherwise fix up the mess it created, and allow the ongoing discussion to continue. If I really have recently misused any talk page, please also call my attention to one or more specific examples, providing a suggestion for a way to handle the situation better as appropriate.  This would be both helpful and very much appreciated. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * First, you talk too much. Second, the clue is WP:CLUE. Third, if you want to deconstruct our WP:RULES won't work, we simply take the rules for what those are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attempt to provide terse advice or constructive criticism. First, how much talk is too much or not enough is an entirely subjective judgment call.  I have not seen any arbitrary word limits set by Wikipedia.  I think you don't talk enough to be helpful.  Second, the humorous essay at WP:CLUE is not helpful either.  Third, I have no interest in deconstructing our WP:RULES, so I also take the rules for what they are.  Fourth, what would be helpful would be answering questions and offering the help requested.  You are under no obligation to do this, of course.  We are all volunteers here.  I hope you understand why I feel bitten (WP:BITE). ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When I begin typing I too have to summarize what I wrote before submitting to avoid endless posts. The main issue is that unlike for usenet posts or journals texts, our exchanges should attempt to optimize efficiency and time, because the goal of the project is encyclopedia building (and maintenance).  While debates are unavoidable, the not-forum, consensus and verification policies (already previously linked) take precedence and remind us to keep to the point and move on when necessary, etc.  While civility is also important, if an editor is ultimately blocked, even if that is a sad situation for everyone, it's only a technical means to prevent disruption and has nothing to do with the person (and their origins, beliefs, dignity, etc).  I used a standard warning template above because they are clear and have the (double-edged) potential of preventing, or precipitating, a block (or other potential sanction like a topic ban).  It's possible that the way I closed the discussion was suboptimal and have no objection if another editor improves the situation.  The closure however seemed necessary to avoid escalation (and before I hatted the discussion an administrator again reminded us).  The important is to move on and you are welcome to propose or make other improvements to articles based on other sources.  I hope this helps, — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a longer explanation. Did you read my comment above (22:42, 26 May)?  Your response seems to be that closing the old section 14 with an ongoing discussion "related to improving the article in specific ways" (while maintaining legacy source citations) is nevertheless justified, because it "seemed necessary to avoid escalation."  The only justification I found for your misleading reorganization of old sections is that it is "less confusing for archival" (your edit summary), another claim that makes no sense to me.  I hope you are not too disappointed, but your response does not help me at all, and I still feel bitten.  Will your action tend to help either the article or the reputation of Wikipedia? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * TJG, I was very pleased that you immediately agreed to stop posting about Aardsma's theories at Talk:Book of Joshua when I suggested it about a week ago, and was quite impressed by your keeping to it even when some other users seemed to find it impossible to stop the discussion, no matter how many times it was pointed out to them that it had nothing to do with improving the article. So I was quite surprised to see PaleoNeonate's warning to you above. But when I checked, I realized you had got tired of taking the high road and had added another (very long) post at Talk:Book of Joshua, obviously tending to revive further discussion from the people you addressed specifically, and pinged, and really, honestly, in no way relevant to improving the article. That explains PN's renewed warning to my satisfaction. The eternal, never-ending details you complain about at that talkpage and here make me tired. Yes, if it means that much to you, I agree that certain other users have also been obstinate in continuing to post in a way that gets further and further away from improving the article. But I don't agree that PN did anything wrong, or created a mess, or that any "obfuscation" of links here, on your own page, is a big deal. Those links have served their purpose. Moreover, the kind of non-permanent links to sections that you use above are always liable to break. If they hadn't broken now, they would have done so when Talk:Book of Joshua was archived next time, at the latest. I advise you to always use either diffs or, when whole sections are in question, permanent links. Creating permanent links is not difficult, it's a service to future readers, and it's something I always try to do myself. In fact, I created the help page Simple diff and link guide because I was so concerned about all the useless broken links I encountered whenever I tried to read up on some old case. I hope that page has done some good, and I hope you'll find it helpful. And, without faulting what you did or singling you out, I urge you to stop trying to discuss generalities ("Are you suggesting that there is no need to distinguish between fact and speculation?" "What formal legal terms have I used in an inappropriate way?") at Talk:Book of Joshua. And stop trying to extract apologies from people for hurting your feelings. (Trust me, they have all heard of WP:BITE, no need to keep linking it.) Just leave it. Walk away. Please. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC).
 * it was technical: I initially created a first-level header, but then realized that talk page archiving robots expect second-level headers; so converted them to second and third level headers in the end.  the intention of this loaded question is unclear, but my edit history, like that of other editors, is public and open to scrutiny.  If it is a genuine concern about the encyclopedia, the enforcement of its policies, when necessary, does help to maintain and improve its quality, obviously.  Its reputation for fact checking and verification appear to be acceptable such that third parties like search engines and social media increasingly rely on it in attempt to avoid "information bubbles". (Of course, it is also very convenient to them to have such an easily accessible source under a friendly license and free of cost...)  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In case this could amuse you (and an example of how we all start somewhere).Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience and for taking the time to reply. The part about link management was especially helpful.  Our comments here might not attract much interest, but I want to clarify some points anyway for whoever may read them, just for the record.


 * You said, "I realized you had got tired of taking the high road and had added another (very long) post at Talk:Book of Joshua, obviously tending to revive further discussion from the people you addressed specifically, and pinged, and really, honestly, in no way relevant to improving the article." Your summary strikes me as misleading, maybe because we considered different facts.


 * The discussion was revived only after I made a new edit intended to improve the article. The edit was designed to stop presenting as fact (in Wikipedia's voice) what is really only expert speculation, according to the cited source, which did not change.  Why mislead readers?  The first contribution to the renewed discussion was not made by me but by the editor who had just reverted my edit.  I then joined the discussion to show that the source had been quoted without some relevant context and to request a clear explanation for reversion.  My first contribution should have been considered reasonable for ordinary WP:BRD discussion within the old section 14, which was exempted in our ceasefire agreement (first paragraph).  I made no attempt to involve any other editor in our discussion.


 * My second contribution was submitted to protest a guess about the intent behind my edit, a guess that was wrong, if not insulting. I did not ping any other editor this time either.  Nevertheless, one other editor then joined our discussion and offered me background information and friendly suggestions for further reading without voting on the issue at hand.  No other editor contributed to the discussion over there before it was closed for reasons that remain entirely mysterious to me.  I don't know why anything I did there should be considered wrong, tiresome, or contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.  I am certainly not going to complain about "eternal, never-ending details."


 * Both of your examples of my "trying to discuss generalities" were taken out of context. I did not ask either question to digress toward a generality.  They still seem reasonable to me.  I was just trying to identify what I had said that might be considered an example of wikilawyering or else what specific problem with my analysis we should be discussing from the point of view of the reverting editor.


 * My statements about feeling bitten were intended to extract repentance or better behavior, not an apology, and it's not really about me anyway. It's about improving the article and not misleading readers.  You advised me to leave it, to walk away, but it is not clear to me what you meant.  If you recommended leaving hurt feelings behind, that's great advice.  If you invited me to quit serving as an editor, I need to think about it. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the technical issue related to archival. I still think you can convert to the necessary levels of headers in a reorganization that reflects a clear understanding of old section content.  Thanks, too, for one example of how a new editor can goof.  I am not perfect either.


 * My question (quoted in a green font) was not about your edit history. It was about your decision to close an ongoing discussion that seemed to be entirely proper, thwarting my attempt to improve the article.  With the article left as it is, a reader can easily discover that Wikipedia may present as fact what is really only expert speculation.  This could only tend to hurt Wikipedia's reputation.  The extent of the damage depends, of course, on how widespread this particular defect is.  I have no problem with enforcement of Wikipedia policies, but I have no idea what existing policy (aimed at maintaining or improving quality) condones blurring the distinction between fact and expert speculation.


 * Is it a loaded question? If it is, I think it is supposed to involve a presupposition on which we do not both agree.  Whether you can find one or not, I can assure you that my intention was just to challenge you to think how stopping discussion might help maintain or improve either the article or the reputation of Wikipedia, so you could explain it to me.  I assume that you did what you did in good faith, but I don't understand how it did any good. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As has explained you, all facts historians assert about the Bible are based upon speculation. There is simply no escape from speculations, no scholar ever has found such an escape (except for having blind faith in the Christian clergy). The problem with your edits is explained at WP:CIR: if you don't get how we do things around here, you can never be a good editor. I have no magic solution of teaching you that. What I can tell you is that you won't get blocked for occasional errors, but you could get blocked for stubbornness and for exhausting the patience of the community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * How we do things around here is a generality. To improve my edit or to decide not to try again, I needed to know something specific that triggered reversion, more than just a bare claim that my reason for it was invalid.  If you are sure the problem with my edits is explained at WP:CIR, how do I find the needle in that haystack?  You ought to be able to point me to some specific point and relate it to my analysis of the issue I tried to address.  Otherwise, it looks as though you are calling me generally incompetent and leaving it at that.


 * It seems to me that the competence of interest in this case is an ability to tell whether or not a statement is presented as a fact, established as such by the mainstream scholarly community (according to a secondary source considered reliable). The Book of Joshua article begins with a statement of fact, that Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible (and the Christian Old Testament).  This much is beyond dispute and not merely expert speculation.  I have no problem with this.  I believe the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article is also a statement of fact, and it is presented as such.  No problem.  The first clause in the next sentence presents an idea that is only "possibly" true, so readers understand that it involves expert speculation.  The contrast is noteworthy.  Even if it is true that some degree of speculation is always involved, it makes no sense to elevate all speculation to the status of fact.  This clause is a case in point.  I have no problem with the way it presents the idea.  The next clause is another story.  Readers are invited to believe that it presents a fact, even thought the cited source presents it as unsettled.  No problem?


 * If patience is being exhausted, is it really all my fault? It is not as though a specific mistake in my analysis has been pointed out, and I have stubbornly refused to admit that I was wrong.  I think the main reason for an inordinately lengthy discussion has been a refusal to identify any specific problem with my edit so that we can discuss it directly.  Instead, I get warnings, general advice, and suggestions for background reading, but practically nothing clearly relevant to the problem I wanted to fix to improve the article.  Now that the main discussion has been closed, I suppose the powers that be have decided to ignore it. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not realizing, or checking, that you had actually edited the article, TJG. However, my criticism of your talkpage manner remains, especially your refusal to take no for an answer. Loaded rhetorical questions ("What formal legal terms have I used in an inappropriate way?", "Does my analysis of the issue that I want to address here depend on what the meaning of the word is is, or on what the meaning of the word seems seems to be?", "Are you suggesting that there is no need to distinguish between fact and speculation?") are bad. Nitpicking ("Notice that Creach did not say, "What is absolutely clear ...," as I believe he would have, if his intention had been to state a fact instead of his expert speculation. What seems to be true or clear is not necessarily a fact") is bad. The appearance, without the reality, of accepting advice ("Your advice not to argue here with every other editor is well taken") is bad, giving people false hope. Passive-aggressive reproaches ("Of course, if some editors want to throw in advice and warnings for a new editor like me, that's fine too") are bad. Threats of edit warring unless your worn-out opponents choose to engage with your fine-drawn arguments yet again ("If no such suggestion comes to light, I think I should simply try my previous edits again") are bad. You are bludgeoning the process. WP:BRD does not mean "If nobody agrees with you, continue arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin". If your edit and your opinions get no traction on talk, stop insisting.

And no, I did not intend, above, to advise you to stop editing Wikipedia. I meant to urge you to change the way you edit it. In this present post, I have tried to be more specific. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC).


 * Thanks for taking the time to be more specific, for clarifying your advice to walk away, and for admitting that your earlier recap of the closed discussion was not completely accurate. You are forgiven, of course.  It is understandably difficult to trace the history of such a long and complex discussion.


 * Now about your detailed criticism of my talkpage manner and your list of bad things I have done, I would normally be tempted to defend myself point by point, but I won't do that this time, even though a rebuttal comes to mind for each one. I will comment in detail on just one of them.  In general, I have felt frustrated in my attempts to guide discussion toward my ideas for improving the article, sometimes by repeating or extending my analysis of the fact/speculation issue.  Other editors tended to concentrate instead on warnings and general advice intended to improve an editor but not the article, often leaving me to wonder whether they seriously considered what I had said.


 * In the first comment in the recently closed discussion, Tgeorgescu quoted Creach (00:41, 24 May) but left out what I maintain is relevant context. Your example of my nitpicking came from my (01:56, 24 May) response to it.  My emphasis there was on the importance of the missing context, which I highlighted, as I had also done in an earlier, related discussion (01:33, 12 May).  After dealing with this, I called attention to the contrast between seems and is, all right, but has anyone ever disputed my conclusion that "What seems to be true or clear is not necessarily a fact"?  Has anyone admitted that this is a quite reasonable observation?  In the context of my issue, is it really so unimportant that it should be considered nitpicking if I bring it up?


 * Tgeorgescu evidently thought so, but when he shared his opinion with me (08:13, 24 May), he again ignored the sentence about hotly debated issues that Creach used to introduce the paragraph of interest. You followed suit in your criticism related to nitpicking.  I think the discussion could have been moved forward expeditiously if interested editors had either presented a reasonable challenge to my conclusion or else admitted that my point was well taken.  Interest in the part about hot debates would have been nice too.  Instead, the discussion veered off in the direction of warnings and general advice, as though it was more important to attack or criticize a new editor than to improve the article or to explain why it is just fine as is.


 * I hope this example will be taken as constructive criticism or as encouragement to talk less about people and more about ideas that might improve the article. Discussions in an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect can be less tiring, less frustrating, much shorter, and more productive.  It's not about me. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, , , ... This is part of the problem: it is never you.  as explained previously, the consensus begins with the status quo and not allowing improper changes protects the article's integrity (already an improvement over tainting it with discredited views or original research or synthesis, for instance).   it was also explained that Wikipedia is not the place to debate theology, only to summarize the most recent sources from the relevant modern scholars; thus the importance to move on and propose new sources.    Since this is an encyclopedia, we can usually state in "Wikipedia's voice" what is the prevalent modern academic view.  The neutral point of view policy, other than the reliable sources one, are not about bias avoidance, but about proper source selection and faithfully summarizing the point of view of those sources.  It also include points like WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:YESPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc.  What we keep reading now is not new proposals, only endless lengthy justifications.  This will be my last comment on this page (at least until further developments warrant more).  I'll be glad to notice new edits with new sources, or concise proposals with new sources (that's how Wikipedia improves).  And since we're all human and not only err but must also work by consensus, we all get reverted from time to time; when we discuss, we can also fail to achieve consensus for our proposals; it's part of the normal editing process (the spirit of WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, etc).  (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)