User talk:RLBaty

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I will dispense with all standard templates and approach this rather differently. For purposes of this message I will assume that you are the RLBaty who has discussed Kent Hovind at length on other parts of the internet including your own site. Wikipedia differs from a lot of the rest of the internet because it exists for building an encyclopedia. I will discuss your post at Talk:Kent Hovind in terms of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.] You have expressed strong opinions, but your opinions might not be upheld by a courts. I need only cite "parsonage exemption" and you should understand that there can be a disconnect between what the law should be and what it is. Things don't have to be deep into a legal grey area to be unclear. To make it even more unclear, Alabama's marriage laws are in a bit of a state of flux.[1] Because Wikipedia seeks to be verifiable, we base edits on reliable sources with a reasonable assurance of fact-checking. For example, a negative search through legal records and an interpretation of law would constitute original research. We do not try to get ahead of the sources. We are especially cautious regardingliving people.

Wikipedia is not the rest of the internet. The purpose of talk pages is changes to the articles not changes of editors' opinions. I am not replying on Talk:Kent Hovind because there are no sources to discuss and the talk pages are not a forum for debate. Please respect that while I may not have your level of expertise on the subject, I might not be a slouch. From a standpoint of what has been found in reliable sources, the issue is unclear. If you have fact-checked, third-party, published sources which I have missed, and which have bearing on changes to the article, that would be something for further discussion.

Wikipedia is a little different from what you might be used to, but again, welcome. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello, RLBaty. You have new messages at BiologicalMe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Editorial standards[edit]

Hello, RLBaty. You have new messages at BiologicalMe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BiologicalMe (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Florida College, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Please don't insert your own opinion/analysis. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent another revision before I saw your email.

I'll see what you, et al, say about that before trying again, if necessary. RLBaty (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be inserting original research and a link to your own blog post--. That's not a reliable source that provides independent coverage of this to confirm is even a true or notable piece of information to include in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page to discuss what you seem to insist on adding. It isn't clear this is notable, let alone sourced. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some comments there.

Maybe that will result in an edit on the topic that satisfies your concerns.

Maybe not. RLBaty (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RLBaty! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Florida College‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about that.

Does your failure to mention any other issue with my latest effort indicate it pleases Wikipedia editors and will be included in the Florida College article? RLBaty (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The above message is a canned message placed here as a way to let you know about general editing pracices. Discussion of content for the Florida College page belongs at Talk:Florida College. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I didn't see on the "talk" page anything further in response to my last submission.

Guess I'll wait and see what, if anything, happens.

Thanks for the response. RLBaty (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last submission was undone has having same the problems as previous ones; nothing in that new edit raised any new issues nor, frankly, showed particular sign of you having paid attention to the things that had already been said to you by multiple editors. As such, the revocation required no further discussion, just a simple editing note (you can see the editing notes for each edit on the editing history for that page.) Your latest version did not include a reliable source discussing the Florida College matter.

Wikipedia editing tends to follow what we call the Bold, Revert, Discuss -- you boldly make your edit, and if no one objects, great! If someone reverts your addition, the next step is to discuss the edit on the talk page and see if you can find WP:CONSENSUS for including it in some form; only once consensus is achieved do you re-add it. To constantly make the same or similar edit when you've found yourself being reverted is a form of edit warring, which can lead to a temporary restriction on your editing privileges. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!

If I run across what appears to meet your definition of "a reliable source discussing the Florida College matter", I will try to remember to let you know and try again.

Despite other instances where Wikipedia has not made such a requirement, it appears that is going to be the standard applied here; seems to me (POV).

I tried to bring your article up to date on the facts of the matter.

Might try again later.

Might not. RLBaty (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that, as already pointed out, the fact other examples might exist in this project isn't itself a valid argument. And please remember to assume good faith in other editors as we all are simply trying to adhere to our core content policies as we build this encycylopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I quite understand your POV about that.

As I noted to Nat Gertler on my user page, I am moving on for now, but will keep in mind the type of citation you might find acceptable before providing your readers with the facts of the matter regarding Florida College in the Byers case and the historic significance of the Florida College claim.

Also, I just noticed what you/or another did in the opening narrative of the article. I like how you, or whoever, exercised that good faith in explaining that to me, NOT. RLBaty (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]