User talk:Anachronist

Please use my talk page rather than emailing me.

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here.

Put new messages at the bottom. I will not notice them at the top.

External links

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:External links#RFC revisit on how to format external links ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Crypto related articles on Wikipedia

Hi, I just have a quick question. Is Wikipedia blocking everyone who writes about blockchain/crypto? I'm new to this but I just found this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies Would appreciate your help! Thank youMargo ka123 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Margo ka123: Users who persist in mentioning or linking companies for publicity purposes can be blocked. That has been a problem with cryptocurrency articles.

If you want to write an article on such a company, your best approach is to see WP:AFC and follow the instructions to create the article in draft space and submit it for review. No link can be added to List of Bitcoin companies unless an article already exists on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply! Just to double check, if I'm a confirmed user (have more than 500 edits and my account has been active for longer than 30 days) then I still wouldn't be able to create a cryptocurrency related article myself without being blocked?Margo ka123 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Margo ka123: You can create a cryptocurrency article right now, in draft space, as I explained. You would not be blocked for doing so, because creating a draft and submitting it for review is not considered disruptive. You cannot edit the List of Bitcoin companies article unless you have more experience.

I will add that if you are employed by a cryptocurrency company, you must disclose this, as you agreed to a legally-enforcable obligation to disclose this when you created an account here; it's required by the Terms of Use. If you have any association at all, the only venue for you to write an article is via WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey

I noticed the User:The good man 232 is keeping blanking template warning form his talk page ([1]), ([2]). He refuse to respond. Thank you and have a nice day. Eliko007 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: I saw the warnings in the talk page history. The user is now temporarily blocked for edit warring and copyvio. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank, I think he should be warned also that he cannot blacking template warning, if he doesn't like he can archive it. Eliko007 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: Please be aware that WP:BLANKING no longer prohibits users from removing warnings from their talk page while blocked. It used to, but now it prohibits removal of declined unblock requests and speedy deletion templates. Please don't restore the warning. Also there isn't any requirement to archive your talk page; some well established users simply don't bother doing that. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I will stop restoring the warning, I thought it's that WP:BLANKING prohibits users from removing warnings from their talk page while blocked. Eliko007 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It used to prohibit that, but doesn't anymore. I disagree with that change, but I can live with it. After all, the history of any page is visible to everyone. If there's a block message on the talk page, then that implies there were warnings even if they've been blanked. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth of religion

what should I write in place of what I wrote earlier? I mean, how can I write that religious conversion will reduce the growth of Christians without misrepresentation or violating copyright? ~ The good man 232 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@The good man 232: First, congratulations on being unblocked. That's probably the quickest resolution I've seen for a block that got escalated to indefinite. As to your question:

The original text says "Meanwhile, religious switching – which is expected to hinder the growth of Christians by an estimated 72 million between 2015 and 2060 – is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslim population growth."

You can paraphrase it to something like this: "People switching their religions will likely not affect the growth of the Muslim population, but may negatively affect the growth of Christians by 72 million between 2015 and 2060." I'm not saying that's the best wording, but it isn't a copyright violation.

However, this statement doesn't belong in the lead paragraph of growth of religion where you originally put it unless it's discussed in more detail in the body of the article. The lead paragraph of an article should provide an overview of the rest of the article without introducing material that isn't covered further on. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your answer. So can I add this now? ~ The good man 232 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find an appropriate place for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that user:The good man 232 is still misrepresenting the source, please check here ([3]) and my comment ([4]); I'm having a feeling that the user is a POV pusher, and he tries to push information that "the religion that most gain through conversion is Islam" by misrepresentation the source, by making POV comparisons, and making his own conclusions when the source says something totally different. Eliko007 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a conversation with him on the article talk page. I see you also corrected the edit. He isn't edit warring or plagiarizing, but he's trying to make good-faith contributions and I don't see him pushing a POV. Lack of reading comprehension isn't something an administrator can do anything about. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

He actually he does ([5]) ([6]), He keeps editing the article and blanking my edits ([7]) instead of starting a conversation, anyway I wrote to him asking him to join the conversation on the talk page. Thanks and have a nice day. Eliko007 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eliko007: Well, I could full-protect the article to force all parties to work out the content dispute on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes please, it's the best solution. Eliko007 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist: 1- I don't understand why you insist on repeating, the Chinese scenario was mentioned before, I do not understand the goal of repeating it again, is the goal is to create Illusory truth effect?

2- Source doesn't say that the reason for the growth of Christians on china is conversion, rather, it said the opposite, stating: "It is expected that there will be a net loss of Christianity due to religious switching."

3- Even that this study is based on unconfirmed and unreliable data, it is originally not worth repeating.

4- the current study did not mention that it excluded China, but rather said that there is a lack of reliable data for all religious groups there, because China does not conduct national statistics for all followers of religions in it, not only for Christians.

5- The source mentioned two scenarios, the main scenario said that there would be a slight decrease in the number of Christians in China to 2.4%, but Eliko007 did not write it. As for the second scenario said that if all atheists (who make up 57% in china) convert to Christianity before 2050, "extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated" But before mentioning this scenario, source said, "This scenario is unlikely,"but Eliko007 distorted it and wrote its place "the study cited that scholars, reports and expert assessments generally suggest". ~ The good man 232 (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is ([8]) inappropriate accusation, this not your first time, I'm not even a Christian, I'm Jewish. Please discuss your points on the talk page, not here. Eliko007 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't carry on a content dispute on my talk page. That is what the article talk page is for. And The good man 232, don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. See WP:AGF. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, I am trying to discuss Eliko about the latest edit on the growth of religion page but he is ignoring me, what should I do? I think that he has no response. The good man 232 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The good man 232 this is ([9]) ([10]) inappropriate comments. Don't worry I'm not ignoring you, I will respond as soon as possible, I'm just busy on weekends due to real life. Eliko007 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Many of us (me included) don't check in every day. I don't know where you live, but in my country this is a holiday weekend. I plan to spend more time with family than on the computer. And during weekdays I work and also am often not online. Some Wikipedians are students or retirees with plenty of time on their hands, and some have families and careers that take precedence. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok 👍. The good man 232 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, Why am I being charged for misrepresentation but not Eliko007? The source said about the Chinese scenario before mention it that it "may be unlikely", and it motioned that is study is "assumes that all atheists in China (who make up 57% there) have converted to Christianity before 2050" and this is a difficult possibility. but Eliko007 distorted it and he wrote,"the study cited that scholars, reports and expert assessments generally suggest that". This is a clear distortion of what the source says. According to another study mentioned by the source, the main study, the number of Christians in China is expected to decrease to 2.4% by 2050. But Eliko did not mention it because it conflicts with his missionary interests. ~ The good man 232 (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1. You clearly misrepresenting the citation. 2. I replayed on the talk page, so please stop carry on a content dispute here. 3. Stop accusing me having "missionary interest" because of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, this inappropriate. Eliko007 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, Say this to you. The good man 232 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, So will you respond or will you evade the response? The good man 232 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,You can now remove the protection on the Growth of religion page, we have reached an agreement. The good man 232 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Declined. I don't see any text proposed, or any consensus reached. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, go to growth of religion talk page. The good man 232 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I did. There is no proposed text (just a promise that it would be forthcoming) and no agreement about the yet-to-exist proposed text. Neither you nor Eliko007 nor desmay have proposed anything yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me tips on this wiki

I already know you as Amatulic on the Minecraft Wiki but can you give me tips on this wiki? TheGreatSpring (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TheGreatSpring: Welcome. Unlike the Minecraft Wiki, the English Wikipedia has a bewildering array of policies (the rules) and guidelines (the best practices). With thousands of editors active on any given day, and given the age of the English Wikipedia (started in 2001) the proliferation of policies and guidelines was inevitable.

A good overview is Wikipedia:Five pillars and the linked articles within it.

The things that trip up new editors here (think of it as the "Things not to do" tutorial on the Minecraft Wiki):

• edit-warring (repeatedly reverting other people's edits) - if you are reverted, it's best to discuss your proposed improvement on the article talk page
• putting personal commentary in articles
• writing a statement in an article that is not attributed to a reliable source
• citing an unreliable source (blog, forum, press release)
• adding promotional-sounding text
• using Wikipedia as a publicity platform
• writing in a non-neutral fashion (this one is tricky with political topics, because neutral journalism that we cite as sources is often perceived as biased by the ideological fringes, leading to claims of Wikipedia being biased; it isn't, we just report what reliable sources say)
• editing with a conflict of interest (for example, avoid writing about yourself, your employer, your work, your relatives, etc. except to correct spelling, grammar, names, or to revert obvious vandalism)
• inserting external links to your own work
• copying text from somewhere else (copyright violation)
• editing for pay without disclosing it
• creating articles in main space that are clearly not ready for publication (use your sandbox or draft space instead)
• creating articles about non-notable topics
• changing regional spelling (US vs UK), American topics should use American spelling, UK topics should use UK spelling, and other topics should use the spelling established early on in the article

The list above isn't complete, but those are errors I tend to see from new users. You won't be blocked for most of those (unless you persistently re-add a spam link, for example), but new users are often frustrated that their contributions are reverted or deleted.

The best way to start is to find a topic of interest and try to improve the article. Correct spelling and grammar errors, find a more concise or compelling way to word something, find reliable sources to cite (I can help you with citation templates).

Once you have 10 edits and 5 days here, you have the ability to edit semi-protected articles, and create your own articles. I recommend doing that in your sandbox or draft space, and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

Sorry for the lengthy reply. I hope it helps. Feel free to ask me any other questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry for the inconvenience, instead of discussion, User:The good man 232 is throwing accusations ([11]), and making racist comments ([12]), according to him most Jews hate Islam. He pushed this statement "As for Christianity, according to the pew research center, the religious conversion may negatively affect the growth of Christians by 72 million between 2015 and 2060" on the introduction, which according to the study this factor has a modest impact on the Christian population in the future, I explain to him lead should give a brief summary of the article and to provide an overview of the rest of the article without introducing material that isn't covered further on. To Find a compromise I suggested a paragraph about the Christian population growth, which includes two views (including the statement that he want to add) and covers the material further on, instead of discussing, he is throwing accusations, claiming that I proposed this text to "cover up the growth of Islam", it's very clear that he only interested is to highlight the switching out of Christianity in the introduction. He thinking that this article is a competition between Christianity and Islam. He accused me of being anti-Islam, it's ridiculous I did not make any negative comments about Islam, he is misrepresenting the citation, and I try in polite language what the source state. Eliko007 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Eliko007 rejects any information that may be against Christianity, and takes only what supports Christianity, he also often citation of a missionary sites, and any information against Islam he repeats it more than a hundred times in the article, he thinks this article is a competition between Islam and Christianity. He is very biased in editing at Wikipedia. If you do not warn him, Wikipedia will soon become a missionary site. The good man 232 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Any one can see on the talk page that I did not provide a "citation of missionary sites", comment like that ([13]), ([14]), ([15]) speaks for itself. And please, switching out or in a religious doesn't mean the statement is against or support that religion. Eliko007 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@The good man 232: If you have a dispute about behavior, WP:ANI is the place to state your case, not my talk page. If you disagree with the reliability of a source, the correct venue is WP:RSN. Your exaggerations aren't helping you here.

@Eliko007: Same for you, WP:ANI is the place to take behavioral disputes. It's a cesspool of drama that I try to avoid myself, but it often helps to get a wider audience of administrators. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, put the template POV in growth of religion page until we come to an agreement. The good man 232 (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the page is protected makes that unnecessary, but I noticed I put the wrong protection tag in there, so the wrong message was being displayed. I have fixed that. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

Given comments you made at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad you may be interested in participating at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Suitable_name_for_"Criticism_of_Muhammad".Bless (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)