User talk:Dotoree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Dotoree, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Empty Buffer (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please take note of the above. You have again contributed to my Talk Page after I had requested that you take your reasons to the Cosmology Talk Page. Also using caps is considered shouting and will not further your argument and, as above. please sign your contributions. Thank you David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have taken the discussion to the cosmology page as requested. Using CAPS is not considered shouting in all cases. Many people use that for emphasis of specific words and there are online news sources advocating that as well. That is how I use them, not for shouting.
It is considered shouting here and rude and not acceptable for civil conversation. And you really shouldn't do it. And please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ , so that the software automatically adds a signature and time stamp for you, it helps keep track of who said what and when. Heiro 20:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been adding the ~~~~ to posts now since I got a message about it. There is no other way to emphasize certain ideas in text that I'm aware of, except capitals. That's why I have to use capitals once in a while. And I only did it with 1-2 words. Don't you think you are being a bit extreme? Wikipedia itself recognizes this, but also that some can take it wrongly. Both are valid ways to use capitals. I'm using it for emphasis. But, this is a very crucial issue of accuracy. "With the advent of the Internet, all-caps is more often used for emphasis; however, it is considered poor "netiquette" by some en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_case See also: www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/bien-well/fra-eng/typographie-typography/manuscules-capitalletters-eng.html Dotoree (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YOU may be using it for EMPHASIS but the people on the receiving end PERCEIVE IT AS SHOUTING. We can't hear your volume level to tell which it is, so probably SAFER not to do it if asked? And, ^^^ you are still not signing your posts with the four tildes. Heiro 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting to see how bold and italic text can be rendered. Capital letters were only used on old-fashioned display terminals. It's different now. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


History of scientific method[edit]

Re your edits to History of scientific method. A couple of points.

First off, please slow down. if you don't, it will only lead to a sad and bitter experience for you at wikipedia. The articles have been like that for a years now; do you really need to revert *today*? Consider WP:1RR as a guideline. Consider also that you're new, and need to feel your way. Don't rush.

Second, being in 2 edit wars at once is a really bad idea.

Third, re History of scientific method, what I think you're looking for is Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't done a lot of editing of wikipedia, but have had several bitter experiences with people due to biases they grew up with, distorting historical facts. Often it's in areas relating to Christianity. I like to assume people are sincere, but you seriously need to do a lot more study of the history of science. Your reverting is just not in line with the historical data. And if your methods were applied to other sources, we'd have to reject all of them too. It's a double standard, unintentional, but that is what it is. You might try checking Dr. Hannam's work below out (it's more dealing with the middle ages, but Daniel did use the modern scientific method long before that and scientist in the middle ages were well acquainted with Daniel):
    • Both pages you are mentioning are woefully inadequate and way behind current academic knowledge, esp. the scientific foreknowledge one. Woefully inadequate description of the historical facts. Both pages need to reflect history correctly in regard to the Bible and neither are doing a very good job of that.
    • He gave another shorter one here at the Royal Society. www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck (see notes & links)
    • See also his website at www.jameshannam.com, esp. the article section. Dotoree (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

And, I'm afraid, you also need to be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will not undo things for the moment, since we are engaging some on this...but you've got to stop distorting historical facts. Consensus of people who have been taught to be biased against ancient history is not valid in comparison to thoroughly documented historical facts. The most serious a priori fallacy/bias is methodological naturalism..and that's likely the motivating factor behind your edits. But, even atheist professors of the philosophy of science state that this just can't be reconciled with following the evidence where it leads. No one at Wikipedia should indulge in obscuring historical facts due to bias and there are sadly a number of cases of that on several topics, not just religious. Dotoree (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Cosmology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. and History of scientific method - you've been told about this but I think it needs reinforcing. You need to stop now and get agreement for your edits. Note that 3RR is not an entitlement. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm discussing things with several people on the appropriate pages...but most are just following status quo fiction instead of the historical and academically documented facts, sometimes by BOTH religious people and anti-religious people. It's quite frustrating that people will just use bias to cover up documented facts, esp. when I'm a professor who has done 100s of hours of study, including with academic and peer reviewed work, in these areas. Many who are talking are obviously amateurs who know almost nothing about either the Bible or linguistics and not much about the history of science. I'm not sure that's true about everyone who is reverting things to complete fiction (on the cosmology page) or erasing historical facts (the history of science page)...but it is for sure about some. I had hoped that Wikipedia would allow objective evidence. So far it seems that this is often banned when it comes to Christianity and in some cases other topics. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be purveyors of propaganda...but that is precisely what the revisions are doing.
    • Please take time to look at the seminars and websites by Dr. Hannam above to become more informed on this topic. Dotoree (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Wikipedia doesn't exist for you to insert your Christian biblical based view of the world. Your shouting "propoganda" and "bias" at everyone else does not help in the slightest, you should read WP:AGF, soon. You might also check out this other encyclopedia project, their beliefs and goals may be more in line with your own. Heiro 22:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has nothing to do with inserting a Christian worldview. PERIOD. It has to do with historical facts. I've been giving peer reviewed sources and people are just willfully ignoring them and reverting things to utter and complete fiction or erasing history, neither of which is ethical or moral. If these facts cause people to be interested in believe God, well that is an entirely different matter. My edits are NOT asking people to believe in God, just listing historical facts that are real and a matter of the historical record. There is no excuse for distorting and erasing historical facts. My edits were done in perfectly good faith and based on the historical data. People who have not done much study in these areas and are uncomfortable with facts are erasing them for emotional reasons. Several have been edit warring with me and not acting in good faith in any way, which is very disappointing to see on a site which is supposed to be objective. Dotoree (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving peer reviewed sources: no you haven't. See for example [1]. The sources you're giving there are only the bible. Which is a primary source, and certainly not peer reviewed. You need to be aware that wiki prefers secondary sources - I've seen you say elsewhere that primary sources are clearly better, and I might perhaps agree with you myself, but that doesn't matter, because the wiki policy is to prefer secondary sources William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Dotoree, You are getting good advice. Please do not take the actions personally, but see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for a statement about edits which seem to be single-issue. If your edits fit that profile, your edits will not survive, by policy. The policies are what govern the encyclopedia; they are not capricious, but have evolved after considerable debate by the community. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dotoree, This getting a little silly. You have been given good advice, yet seem to ignore it. Anyone who seems to disagree with your view is labelled "amateur" - yet you have not given anyone on Wikipedia any detail about yourself on a user page. And still you shout - it is not necessary, you can use italic instead and please sign every contribution. We are here to help any contributing editor who abides by Wikipedia policy and has correct sources - which can be verified. Finally can I just ask you to re-read the contribution from Dougweller above. David J Johnson (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave peer reviewed sources at the History of science page and at the cosmology page, in the talk section I have listed very solid academic references by many famous scientists, including agnostics who agree with the things I have stated. And the Bible on the cosmology page is the ONLY reliable source for what the Bible claims. PERIOD. In almost all other of the ~20 cases there, the only source used is a primary source, often religious, such as the Hindu Rigveda, the sacred text for the Hindu religion, and many have no references as I included with mine, just a book name. The ONLY sources for MANY cosmologies on that page is a primary source no different from the Bible, which is right and fair, since only the sacred text for a religion would have the authority to describe what it teaches (I'm beginning to wonder if they've been misrepresented as badly as the Bible has). Secondary sources are rarely if ever used in the other descriptions and yet you're requiring me to do what others are not. What I'm getting is mostly double standards.Dotoree (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has nothing to do with my view. It has to do with the general view of the Bible and Christianity. I am a professor of linguistics and also have a degree in religion. I also have a job editing academic papers. I haven't been active that much on wikipedia due to many other projects and it probably would be good to update my user page (haven't thought that was important and had other priorities). But, I can tell you that a priori rejection without investigation of established historical facts by scholars is certainly not encouraging at all. Dotoree (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you appear not to be listening to other Editors. The Bible is not a historical document, otherwise we would all believe that the world was made in seven days - which it clearly wasn't. Nor do we want to keep hearing you are a "Professor", without any supporting evidence. You have been offered help and advice by myself and other Editors and appear to ignore that advice - and once again - please stop "shouting", it does not help in any way. Wikipedia operates to accepted coventions which we all agree to, it is not up to any one individual to change them to his/her point of view. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dotoree, Please don't shout. I have repeated my note to you from several sections above; you don't have to use CAPS for EMPHASIS. And to repeat the information from the welcome message to you, please read Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting to see how bold and italic text can be rendered. In today's notation, CAPS are rude to the recipient. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          • I am listening perfectly, but when people make claims that have nothing to do with facts (many are equivalent to claiming that I am not writing English in their accuracy), it is not something helpful at all or valid(and I'm not shouting. I've explained and cited several valid sources on capitals, but I can try to use bold if you prefer that). I presently teach at Kyungsung University in Busan, S. Korea (which is an incredible country and in quite a few areas better than America. I say this as a 100% America, who loves many things about America, but sees things it could learn from others sometimes.). If an authority here wants to send me their e-mail, I can e-mail them a scan of my contract or a resume). Dotoree (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyone who claims that the Bible isn't a historical document simply doesn't know very much about the field of history. The Bible is by definition a historical document, since it is a document that was written in history and has confirmations of its content outside itself in archaeology, works by other historical writers and more. These all make the Bible indisputably a a historical document. You are confusing the identification of a historical document with how reliable it is. These are 2 separate matters. Just because something is a historical document does not guarantee everything it says is true. No historian of any kind is so naive as to believe that. But, the Bible is one of the strongest books in history on accuracy and reliability and many skeptic experts have come to this conclusion. Here's one. The famous historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay. Ramsay was very skeptical of the accuracy of the New Testament, and he ventured to Asia minor over a century ago to refute its historicity. He especially took interest in Luke's accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, which contained numerous geographical and historic references. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported Luke's accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay's archeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity. Ramsay finally had this to say:"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth" William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1982, pg 8Dotoree (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • See wikipedia itself: "Historical documents are documents that contain important information about a person, place, or event. Most famous historical documents are either laws, accounts of battles (often given by the victors or persons sharing their viewpoint), or the exploits of the powerful." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_document. Dotoree (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • All primary and secondary sources as well as other types of documents are most definitely valid historical sources. And the Bible contains many primary and secondary sources. From the secular University of Texas which talks of the importance of primary and secondary sources, which the Bible is jam packed with: “Primary Sources are the most sought after in historical research. Primary resources are first hand accounts of information. ‘Finding and assessing primary historical data is an exercise in detective work. It involves logic, intuition, persistence, and common sense…(Tuchman, Gaye in Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, 252). Some examples of primary documents are: personal diaries, eyewitness accounts of events, and oral histories. Secondary sources of information are records or accounts prepared by someone other than the person, or persons, who participated in or observed an event.” Secondary resources can be very useful in giving a researcher a grasp on a subject and may provided extensive bibliographic information for delving further into a research topic.” http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm Dotoree (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL[edit]

Please comment on content and not the contributors here. I asked you several times last week to refrain from comments such as "intentional fraud", "intellectual human rights abuse" and any of the other number of epithets or attacks you have used here. And yet just from today: "intentional fraud", "flagrant violation of human intellectual rights" and "lying" and "How can any adult not understand this? This is like ABC kindergarten logic". Keep it up and I take this to the admin boards to seek corrective actions. I have asked you several times to refrain from personal attacks and uncivil language, this is your last warning on the matter. Heiro 21:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for delays, but I tried to talk rationally for quite a bit and I spoke on the ideas and facts as long as possible and often continued even in the above comments to just refer to the fallacious arguments that were being made, not the person as a whole. But, certain people are engaged in censorship of facts that is wrong whether it's about Christianity, atheism, Buddhism, communism, science or whatever. It's against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Your reasoning is almost totally based on fallacies esp. double standards and straw men)and these cover up the facts of biblical history that many theologians and scientists agree on. What is being done is equivalent to describing America with the attributes of North Korea or Darwin by Lamark, or the Koreans as if they are Japanese. It's against everything Wikipedia stands for and very unethical. If I can talk to Wikipedia admins on this, I would LOVE it and can demonstrate the extreme bias against historically documented facts that soooo many academic Christians agree on. Everyone has bias. That's understandable. But, when you let bias cause you to reject solid and legitimate facts, that bias is extremely harmful to objective and rational reasoning. It is unethical and destroys the ability of people to evaluate evidence fairly, the foundation of rational thought and modern science as well. Refrain from using fallacies and I will have no need to expose them as I have regrettably had to do above.Dotoree (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have exposed nothing but your own bias and an unwillingness to abide by our policies on WP:RELIABLE, WP:NPOV, WP:SECONDARY, WP:OR, and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Those policies (under the framework of the WP:Five Pillars) represent what Wikipedia stands for. I suggest you study up on some of those policies before re-engaging in your crusades, the community here defines what "Wikipedia stands for", not the wants of one WP:POVpushing editor. And as for admins, between this page and the talk pages at the several articles you are crusading on, 3 or 4 well respected admins have already weighed in and offered you some good advice, you might want to take them up on it. Heiro 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC
Absolutely agree with the comments from Heironymous Rowe above. Dotoree has been offered help on numerous occasions by myself and other editors, yet our contributions and more importantly Wikipedia coventions are ignored. I think the time is fast approaching for a Administrator to become involved. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is hardly a fact above. I've explained why none of your claims are factual several times before.

RELIABLE: You don't have any reliable primary sources and only very few extremely biased secondary/tertiary sources that are pushing the straw man of biblical cosmology. I've given much better sources of all 3 kinds.

NPOV: You are about as far from neutral as it is possible to get. The most basic and barest level of neutrality would at a minimum include BOTH the ideas I've cited from primary/secondary/tertiary sources and the Babylonian nonsense. MINIMUM. Your arguments basically support the equivalent of identifying the United States as the Soviet Union (esp. since Babylon is routinely condemned as one of the worst agents of evil in the entire Bible. See Isaiah 13, Psalms 137:7-8, Revelation 14:8 for starters).

SECONDARY: I've given a number of secondary scholarly sources. Only a couple VERY obsolete and debunked ones were given for the straw man you are supporting.

NOR: NOTHING I'm saying is original research or new. NOTHING. I've heard this from a variety of pastors, theologians, Christian scientists throughout my life. It's NOTHING NEW, contrary to your unacademic opinions which is against so much available evidence.

WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS/FIVE PILLARS: You and several others have not even begun to follow the "act in good faith" principle of wikipedia and others on these pages. You hurled severe accusations of bias, original research, preaching/soap box and so much other abject nonsense from the very start, none of which are true. Ironically, it is actually you pushing an agenda that doesn't match the facts or the views of so many scholars on this topic. You did not begin to follow your own standards, nor Wikipedia's. That's what has incensed me so much. I have no problem with what Wikipedia is, or its 5 pillars. YOU DO. To agree with you, would be to throw away many things in the wikipedia links you have provided as worthless. There is very little that is objective or factual about your complaints.Dotoree (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dotoree Please do not abuse other editors as you have yet again in your latest post above; ie "unacademic opinions" etc: this kind of talk does not help your case at all: also, once again, please stop shouting - you have been advised of other ways to make your points. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not abused anyone. They've been abusing me and much more importantly objectivity by alleging the worst bias (above you see one ridiculous comparison of my documentation of facts to a crusade, and a host of others which are all major violations Wikipedia's instruction to assume that others are "acting in good faith", something that only 1 of the editors did that I can recall), making numerous false accusations (if you want I can quote them specifically), arguing directly against Wikipedia standards, standards of objectivity in academia, and by pushing many fallacies (double standards, straw men, etc.) to obstruct objective facts. I have never been shouting. I've cited several sources that show that it is very common for single words to be capitalized to show emphasis. If you capitalize an entire sentence, THEN that can be considered shouting. Capitalizing individual words is done to show strong emphasis of important points.Dotoree (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dotoree&oldid=549667844"