User talk:Boeldieu

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Boeldieu! Thank you for your contributions. I am 1990'sguy and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! 1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reflect sources more accurately[edit]

You wrote that "in the article" (which is confusing but never mind" "Purifoy links to Nelson's full interview as evidence that he was not misquoted." This is a complete misrepresentation of what either wrote and would seriously mislead the reader. Nelson doesn't claim he was misquoted on his blog, and Purifoy doesn't say that Nelson made such a claim. Why did you write that? At the top of Purifoy's article he wrote "Although in the film and in his full interview he employs this one-to-one comparison, his later reflection led him to re-evaluate what he said. He and I spoke about it and he asked if I would change the film." That's where the link is. How do you get "misquoted" from "later reflection led him to re-evaluate what he had said"? And Nelson clearly regretted what he had actually said, he doesn't claim he was misquoted. "I must accept my share of responsibility for this error, and regret that so many people will hear me say something I do not believe to be accurate." [1] I really would like to know why you made it look as though Nelson had claimed he was misquoted. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson says in his post that, "To put the matter as plainly as possible, what I say about only “two paradigms” is not true." This can only mean: 1) he was misquoted or 2) he was accurately quoted and changed his mind later about what he said and wanted it changed. The former seems to be what he is implying, but I will agree that it is unclear. Reading Purifoy's response, it appears that he is pointing out that he did not misquote him, and he suggests Nelson must have later changed his mind. The original statement said Nelson claimed his comments were distorted. It does seem that neither of them are saying everything, and there's probably more to the story than we can see - but my representation of the sources is accurate. Boeldieu (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boeldieu, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Boeldieu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. It was a bit surprising since some of the rationale for the edits were explained as bias against the views of subjects featured in the film. I had been told that Wikipedia sought a neutral voice and just wanted facts stated, so when I saw this, I found it rather curious. The cast list of a film, for instance, is simply a matter of fact - and for a documentary film that is primarily interviews, it is rather important to know. I will be sensitive to this in the future in terms of taking up the discussion elsewhere. But I would hope that editors would not bring any personal bias into what they were editing; that seems to violate the basic principles of Wikipedia. Boeldieu (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to pay attention to the edit summaries people use to explain their edits, as well as discussions on the talk page. At the moment you are undoing people's edits without seeming to understand or adequately responding to their reasoning, which is edit warring.

For example, the full cast list was removed by Ronz, who stated that he wanted to "trim to notable people". Nobody is disputing that the cast list is factually accurate. What we do need a source for is stating unequivocally that the cast are "scholars and creation scientists", or palaeontologists, archaeologists, etc.

some of the rationale for the edits were explained as bias against the views of subjects featured in the film.

I assume you're referring to my edit here? This was a response to your assertion that, "anyone who obtains a doctorate from an accredited academic institution is recognized as a scholar or scientist in their field", which I don't believe to be true. If somebody gets a PhD but then starts saying the world is 6,000 years old because they read it in a book, a lot of people are going to dispute the fact that they are a scientist. So we can't use Wikipedia's voice to assert that they are. My apologies if that wasn't clear. Sometimes it's hard to articulate a point in an edit summary and at that point I probably should have taken it to the talk page. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, and I agree with you that this information is not necessary for the cast list. The question does go back, however, to how one defines a scientist. Meaning, if one chooses to hold a view that is different from conventional science based on one's reading of the data (even if that reading is influenced by outside views), is rejected for it by the general community, and yet in time is shown to be accurate in some way (even if quite different than how originally conceived: Copernicus is a case in point), then this disqualifies everyone from Franz Mesmer (hypnotism) to Alfred Wegner (plate tectonics) to Halton Arp (peculiar galaxies) to things like energy flows in Qi medicine regularly practiced by "off the grid" practitioners. My point is this: it concerns me when one can have all the outward qualifications for a scientist, yet hold to a view outside the mainstream, and therefore be denied that appellation. La Place held to the caloric theory of heat; Einstein rejected quantum physics, etc. etc. Must a scientist be one who holds to the conventional paradigm at all points? If so, then science would never develop. Again, I understand your perspective, but even Isaac Newton was convinced of alchemy, the historicity of the Bible, and a young earth. Surely, he is the paragon of the true scientist. I am just concerned that these are subjective qualifiers that are not based on anything neutrally verifiable, and therefore does not provide us on WP any way to measure what should or should not be considered for inclusion. Again, thank you for your assistance and clarification. Boeldieu (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The issue at hand concerned an accurate representation of cast members in a film that is, apparently, the highest grossing short-run documentary of the year so far, seen by hundreds of thousands of people. It seems irrelevant what the subject matter of the film is, correct? Even if everything in the film is incorrect - and I'm sure there is a lot that is - we have a duty to record what is in it for those interested in learning about something that has been seen by so many people in 2017. Please let me know where there is a mistake in my thinking. Boeldieu (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]