User talk:Zanzibar606

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Zanzibar606, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful[edit]

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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.
Article content should be relevant. Just because a concept is mentioned in a book or movie does not mean the book or movie should be mentioned in that concept's article.

Your addition to The Urantia Book was reverted because the material you added did not discuss ultimatons. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email[edit]

If you "start a section on the Urantia Book page that will have things in support of the science in the UB with references to modern science papers" I cannot block you, but I can revert your edits if they are original research, which they were last time. An academic, peer-reviewed science work unconnected to the Urantia foundation or followers of the Urantia book would have to outright state "here are scientific facts found in the Urantia book." Last time, the science source did not mention the Urantia book in any way, shape, or form. Also, you can leave messages on my talk page (just be sure to place it in a new section at the bottom, and sign your post with four tildes or ~~~~). I actually check my talk page more often than my email. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are ignoring the messages above. Really not a good idea, especially now you've been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need a scientist to write in a peer-reviewed paper that the "dark islands" are references to black holes when anyone can read the UB text and see that for themselves? Are you telling me that reading the paragraph on the "Dark Islands of Space" in Paper 15... you do not think they are talking about black holes? Have you read that section? What else would they be talking about?

I can read the UB text, and I do not see this connection for myself. But it doesn't matter: we are here to relate the best analysis of the experts, not to report what we think is self-evident. If you can find a decent source, namely some neutral and authoritative third-party source, which connects these "dark islands" with "black holes", then you can probably put in some passage about it, citing that source.

Look at it this way: when you personally put in a passage like this, without any other source, you are proclaiming that you are an expert. None of us takes that seriously, not just because the way you are doing this shows a lack of expertise, but more fundamentally because we don't know who you are. And since we (officially at least) don't know who anyone is who writes our stuff, just putting in material because it's what you see is never going to be good enough. You're welcome to try again if you can find genuine sources, but if you repeat putting this material in this way, you'll be blocked permanently because we do not have to put up with a failure to follow the rules indefinitely. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and citing Gardner who is an avowed skeptic which is all over the page is "neutral and authoritative", what a joke. It is only fair to add in a section on scientific confirmations when there is a section on scientific criticisms. Requiring that I have a peer-reviewed scientific paper is not fair whatsoever. If you read the paragraph on the "dark islands" in paragraph 15, it is clear that they are referring to black holes.

First step: go read the basic editing instructions, particularly the parts about indenting and signing your comments.

Second: The heavy use of Martin Gardner as an authority is irrelevant. Even if every passage cited to him were removed, we would still expect you to provide some external authority for your black hole claim. The conclusion you wish to add to the article is not "clear" and requires a leap of intuition; your authority is insufficient. If you don't agree with this, then you need to find something else to do with your time. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Urantia Book shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Urantia Book. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not do this again. See WP:POINT. You've been told you need to use the talk page to get consensus for your edits but have ignored that request. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zanzibar606 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]