User talk:Zenkai251

Welcome!

Hello, Zenkai251, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ryan Vesey contribs 04:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

{{helpme}} Two images that I uploaded are going to be deleted. How can I save them? I think I might have used the wrong tag on them. Can someone please help me? Zenkai251 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, not a hope. The possibility of using web photos as "fair use" will nearly always fail when the subject is alive - because there is the possibility of obtaining a replacement which can then be used "normally" (i.e you go and see a concert and take your own camera!). The only alternative is to contact the web site as ask them to donate the photographs, therby obtaining an OTRS ticket - see WP:DCM for details  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. there is nothing on either web site that would allow the pictures here. In fact one site puts up "© 2006 - 2011 BMA Designs. All rights reserved." - that is a definite "no go". Although such sites are put up as "promotional", they often don't want their photos here - remember all images on WP (that are not "non free") can be used for any purpose, including commercial uses - you could in theory take a set of 12 photos off WP, and make and sell calendars for next year, all that would be required would be some small print to say where the photo came from.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know.

In several parts and in some communities of the US labeling someone an atheist is characterizing them as most vile, immoral, evil, unworthy of public office or protection under the law. I.e. Sub-human. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When I call someone an "atheist" I definitely don't mean any offense. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And adding adjectives like 'foolish' isn't offensive? And I note that you have no evidence for any of this labelling editors, only your interpretation of their edits. And you don't seem able to consider the possibility that an atheist or Christian might still edit from an NPOV perspective, which is worrying. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that several people on here don't edit with a NPOV. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Final Warning

Please stop editing against consensus, edit warring, and making pointy edits. Doing so is considered tendentious. I'd love for you to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but your edits recently have not been constructive, and if this continues, I or another editor will have to escalate the matter, which is very likely to result in a block. Perhaps it would be good for you to contribute to a new topic that interests you for a while, like planes, or parks and towns near you, or politics. If you need help, please stop and ask for it before continuing to edit in this way. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, consider this a warning for edit warring on Evolution. You are close to 3rr (see that last linked page for details). Please stop reverting, and contribute to the talk page with your concerns. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain yourself. Never have I edited against a consensus I was aware of. All I'm doing is trying to make some articles neutral. Zenkai251 (talk)

For instance, consensus on Genesis creation narrative was to link to creation myth, and you have recently taken to reverting editors to remove "creation myth" from the lead. Edit warring tends to be seen as editing against consensus (or without consensus) as well. Please take a breather, and ask questions if you have them. This recent editing is disruptive. As I mentioned above, it might be good for you to edit other articles for a little while, otherwise this new ANI case may result in a formal topic ban.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my proposal for Genesis creation narrative. I wanted to change creation myth to creation narrative, not remove anything. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your proposal. However, the RfC held on the talk page unanimously supported linking creation myth, and so changing "creation myth" to "creation narrative" is against consensus. Consensus can change, so you could make a persuasive argument on the talk page after some time has passed and gain support, but until you have done that, editing against the current consensus is disruptive. I understand that you're trying to make the article more neutral, but please understand that the way you are going about it isn't helping. Would you consider taking a breather and editing a new topic for a little while? Perhaps you might also consider adoption, which might better acclimate you with our policies?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't a part of my propsal; to tell the truth, I don't know what brought it about. Also, I agree to ease up my edits on the disputed articles as soon as we reach some kind of agreement. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The RfC was an independent question posed by another editor to the community concerning what term we should use to describe Genesis in the lead. The community broadly decided that creation myth was appropriate. As such, the community has reached an agreement on the creation myth issue. Please read WP:CON and WP:TE (particularly here and here). You do not have to agree with consensus for it to form, but abiding by consensus is a necessary part of collaboration on wikipedia. Again, I'd ask that you consider editing other topics or requesting adoption. Could you tell me if you'd be open to either of those ideas? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was to determine whether or not a link to "creation myth" belonged in the lead. It was decided that the link needed to be there. It had nothing to do with changing the phrase to "creation narrative". We have still not yet reached a consensus on my proposal. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Most editors commenting in the RfC noted that the text "creation myth" should appear in the lead. Further, the previous version of the page (which had consensus support) included the text "creation myth". Lastly, a proposal to change the wording to creation narrative has not received consensus support. These are three ways in which consensus could be viewed, and all three support keeping the current wording of "creation myth", at least until a new consensus forms that it should be changed. Can you see why editing the article unilaterally to change the text (and, BTW, also the link) could be seen as disruptive? Also, why did you change List of creation myths to include the Big Bang? I'd appreciate it if you could answer my questions about editing other topics and adoption. It would really help me in deciding how I wish to be involved in this dispute, and it would be a step towards demonstrating good faith on your part. If you have questions about either, I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a break from editing Christian articles and will instead work on classical music articles. I have contributed constructively there in the past. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering Zenkai. If you need any help, or have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Christianity, Bible, etc.

Hiya. I have noticed your recent edits regarding Adam & Eve and such, and thought it probably a good idea to talk with you. Your position on the issue seems to be some variation on Biblical inerrancy. That is a topic about which we have comparatively few reliable sources produced to date - the lack of reliable sources, of course, makes it harder to build any particular articles reflecting that position.

Regarding your earlier comments that any Jew, Christian, or Muslim would say the Genesis creation myth is accurate, I think you should know that at least one very obvious Christian around here, me, favors the use of the term myth in the lead. Yes, I am a Christian. In college, I was even very seriously considering becoming a Dominican monk. (I hope you recognize Catholics as Christians, of course.) And, yes, as an individual, I do personally very much hold open the possibility that the Genesis creation myth is true. However, others do not. This includes members of other non-Abrahamic faiths, as well as at least some nominal Christians who do not believe in the factual accuracy of just about anything in the Bible, including among others liberal Anglicans who think of Jesus as a pure myth or legend. It is in part because of this lack of consensus on the topic that I favor the use of the word "myth". If we were to try to present the Genesis creation myth as factual, then we would face the same problem with many of the Greek myths (there are Greeks who still hold the stories true, as well as other Neopagans), Hindu mythology (having read some of them, I have to say some are factually laughable, but people still believe them), and, yes, even Scientology's Xenu. And there are right now similar discussions being had about the reputability of Astrology and other fringe science or pseudoscience. I cannot see that it makes sense for us to be forced to face the possibility that each and every myth which is current for any group would have to be presented here as factual.

For the most part, our particular audience is the English speaking world. As such, many, if not most, will already know most of the central myths/stories about Adam and Eve, other stories from Genesis, as well as stories about Jesus, Muhammad, and others. If they as individuals are already disbelieving those stories, we only damage our own credibility by trying to present stories which do not have broad-based scientific support regarding their accuracy as factual.

Also, there is the fact that the field of myth and legend is itself a very broad one, and, as per Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell and others, there is a great deal of scholarly material available on the development of myths. Even as a Christian, I think there is a decent chance that you as an individual find some of the later stories written about Jesus and others, like the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, for example, to be false. If that is true, then it definitely in your interests (and, in this case, mine as well) to present the new material as new, and, if possible, provide links to content elsewhere which indicates that the questionable material is in some way derived from some other sources of at best dubious reliability.

While I sympathize very much with your position, I do think that, maybe, the best way to go to present the belief that the Bible is absolutely true is to find information on some group which specifically believes that, or find sources published by reputable publishers, and develop that content. By doing so, you would be able to present the information here and in a way which is accessible to all. Whatever our personal beliefs are, I hope that you, like the rest of us, want to present the best neutral information possible.

If you want any help in maybe finding sources for such material, drop me a note on my talk page, or send me an e-mail with your address, indicating what sort of material and/or sources you're looking for, and I will be more than pleased to offer whatever help I can. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, John. The reason that I want the word "myth" removed is because it implies falseness, and there's no way that anyone can prove it to be false. Also, I know of several groups that hold Genesis to be factual; those include Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research. I'm not sure if such groups would be considered "reliable sources" on wikipedia. And I would appreciate some help in finding some that would be considered reliable. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your statement above seems to be placing the shoe on the wrong foot. I agree that no one can prove pretty much anything about the subject of Genesis, or Jesus, or Xenu, or Hinduism, or Buddha, or a lot of other things. What we are obliged to rely upon are independent sources which meet WP:RS, and that tends to very strongly favor scientific sources over religious sources. I accept that, myself, given cases like Xenu mentioned above. We can't prove he never existed either. But policy and guidelines demand that the burden of proof as per WP:BURDEN is on those who seek to add (or keep) information in an article, not on those who contest it. I egret that the groups you mentioned above are groups with which I am not myself particularly familiar. They probably are considered reliable sources for their own opinions, but in cases of argument we favor articles in peer reviewed academic journals, overviews by independent academics or others in encyclopedias, etc. In this case, that would place the greater reliability on sources like peer reviewed historical, archaeological, and other journals, as they do not have any sort of inherent "bias" beyond that of scientism. Also, books that have received favorable reviews in peer reviewed journals and the like are favored over those that don't have such reviews, in a head-to-head combat.

Regarding the point that myth implies falseness, I am not sure that belief is necessarily support in academic literature. In popular culture, yes, the relationship is obvious - people in general use the word only for things of dubious authenticity, like for instance some of the stories about Krishna in Hinduism. But even the Hindus who accept those stories as accurate tend to accept the use of the word "myth" around here, because the current academic usage of the word, which is less judgmental, is appropriate. They might say that the other similar, false, stories are all perversions of the original true story, I don't know, but they do accept the use of the term.

I do know that the Garden of Eden story is prominently included and discussed in a fairly highly regarded academic reference book whose title describes its contents as being "creation myths", so it would be hard to argue that the term "myth" is wholly inappropriate. And a lot of the scientific/scientist reference works indicate that the story does not have any particular independent evidence to support it. Personally, I think the best approach might be to accept the use of the term, but maybe add something in the lead section to the effect that while the story is not widely accepted in independent peer reviewed academic sources, it is still accepted as accurate in at least some Jewish, Christian, and (maybe, I don't know about this myself) Moslem groups.

I will go over the books of newspapers, journals, etc., I mentioned above, and see if there are any peer reviewed publications which could be brought forward to counter the mainstream academic press. It will probably take at least a few days to go through those books, but I will contact you with what I can find. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

Hi Zenkai. I just read your conversation with Mann Jess on his/her user page and thought I'd say a little myself, without wanting to pile in on you.

I don't like to see anyone made uncomfortable by their experience on Wikipedia. This should be an enjoyable, collegial activity carried out in friendship. So I'm sorry that the current lead to the article upsets you.

That said, there seem to be two options open to you: walk away (and find an area where you won't be jumped on heavily, as is highly likely in religious articles - they attract people with strong views), or else come to terms with the way a controversial article and much-followed like this is edited.

The statement that upsets you is that Genesis 1-2 is based on Mesopotamian myths. You'd like to change this to "may be based". But as Mann Jess points out, the source leaves no room for that wording.

Given that, if you want to dispute the statement, you have to examine the source.

It's from Nahum Sarna. Sarna was (he died in 2005) a very eminent scholar, with professorships at places like Brandeis and Columbia, and his works are widely quoted. And he was a specialist in Genesis and the Pentateuch. So, he's a reliable source. That's the first thing: is the source a reliable one?

The next thing is, how widespread is this view? Is it shared by 100% of other experts, or by a significant majority, or a significant minority, or a small minority, or is it a new proposal? Sarna expresses it as if it's 100%. I don't know on this score, but in all my reading for the article, I never came across any other reliable source that said otherwise - and those reliable sources include some very conservative scholars (I think all the commentaries in the bibliography are by conservatives and evangelicals - at least one of them even says he thinks Moses wrote Genesis).

I'm not saying all this to convince you to change your mind, but to demonstrate how I wrote the entry: finding reliable sources and bouncing them off other reliable sources. That's why the list of books in the bibliography is so much longer than the list of sources quoted as references - they were all consulted, but only the ones who expressed a view most clearly were used. Nevertheless, the books are all there, and anyone who doubts anything in the article can check them out.

I hope this helps. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, no, biblical scholarship isn't a science, it doesn't lead to assured results (but does science?) but it does have its methods and they're useful ones. PiCo (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, I hope we can find some reliable sources to support my proposal, or at least change it so it isn't stated as a 100% fact. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Hey, Zenkai! Glad you decided to join Wikipedia. Don't mean to be rude, but you don't have to speak that way to them. Most significant edits here needs an explanation, and often the POV of the editors gets in the way of contributors who don't want Wikipedia's Creation pages to be so one-sided. (No offense to anyone who opposes my view of the way they view my views). Usually it is best to edit these kinds of articles with the intent of changing the one-sidedness not very often or you will be seen as a disruptive editor. Unless the majority of edits you make have the intent of improving the article's content itself from the view of the majority of editors, or minor edits (like grammar, link, and typo fixing). I personally don't believe WP can be Neutral Point of View, but it Low Point of View is possible in other domains. Note to other editors: I'm only trying to stop a fellow editor from making a mistake, so please don't comment on the views presented; they are given from his situation. I am well aware most of you don't think that way and I respect that. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Creationist, and have been editing Wikipedia for a while. How would you like if I mentored you a little until you are used to all the rules and policies. Most likely beginning with WP:FRINGE. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is remove any material that might be offensive to Atheists off your user page and make sure it conforms to this guideline. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, many of the "Atheists" editing Wikipedia are quite kind once you get to know them. User:Noformation, although not a Creationist was one of the editors who helped get me out of my block. Countless others mean well, too. User:PiCo has spoken up for you already. They're not out to ban you. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more useful policies: WP:CONSENSUS vs WP:TRUTH. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for being my mentor. I have removed the offensive material from my talk page and I am about to read the articles linked above. I look forward to working with you :) Zenkai251 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Zenkai. Enjoy! Kind of funny, some of these policies, aren't they? Like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 10:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Another one you may want to check out: WP:BATTLEGROUND. Meaning the improving the article according to consensus is pretty much valued above improving the consensus itself. This is similar to WP:NOTFORUM. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

With the next significant edit you want to make, please feel free to check with me on how to make it. Wikipedia has so many rules, guidelines, and policies I'm pretty sure not even User:Hrafn has read them all. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wekn! I checked out all of those links. Oh, and come to think of it, I could use some help at Genesis creation narrative. Please check it out if you have time, thanks. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I can understand it being included per WP:RSUW, but at least the conversation that started after yours has some semi-violations of WP:DUE and WP:VALID. As Wikipedia tends to present things from a secular point of view, they all too often give more weight to non-Christian views (i.e. Wiseman hypothesis) and less to Christian ones (i.e. Creationism). Funny, I just came across a dismissal of Discovery Institute's reasons why the motives of ID are not to promote Creationism because the organization was 'not a reliable source' for the topic. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more policies related to the article: WP:NOTE and WP:PROMINENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 09:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And the Creation Institute seems like a reliable source for Creationism, why can't it be used? Zenkai251 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that we wouldn't use apologetic KKK WP:PRIMARY sources to justify racism. N^oformation ^Talk 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite different. I'm actually disgusted that you would even dare to compare the Creation Institute to the KKK. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's really not different. It's a fringe group that wants to push an agenda that has been rejected by experts in the relevant field. For the KKK it's ethicists, for the DI it's scientists. Both groups would think their beliefs are rational and both groups write apologetically. For the KKK it's fake science that presents race as a biological as opposed to a societal construct; for the creationists it's fake science that presents a lot of BS that I don't need to go in to here. The form of analogy I used is called reductio ad absurdum ; very common and not offensive in the least if you can understand how analogies work. N^oformation ^Talk 04:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you think Creationism is a fringe theory. That's your opinion. And for your information, the people at the Creation Institute are experts in their field, whether you agree with them or not. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia policy; biologists are experts in the field, not creationists or scientologists or any other group of nutjobs who think they have an informed opinion on the matter.. And no, it's not just my opinion that it's fringe, it's the opinion of 99% of scientists in the relevant fields (as well as the supreme court of the US and every major scientific body in the world) which makes it a fringe theory by definition. Wikipedia does not treat fringe like it treats real science, Wekn pointed you to WP:FRINGE, I suggest you read it well. N^oformation ^Talk 06:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationism is not a fringe theory. Also, I think you're a bit confused about who's a nutjob. Zenkai251 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationism is more of a minority view, and definitely not on the fringe of religion. At least not Christianity. In the scientific world, Intelligent Design is a minority theory (though it does not fully fit the fringe criteria given by Wikipedia, which are on the fringe of fringe criteria). Let's not go calling people nuts now, shall we? That is what I call overstepping WP:BEHAVE. Much better to resolve our issues peacefully, right? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And remember, it is Wikipedia's definition of "fringe" (plus a number of other definitions) that makes it not 'real' science. That includes combining ID and Creationism. Nevertheless, unless the definition itself is changed, the amount of positive change in the direction of Creationism that can be made is limited, yet not altogether unachievable. So when editing WP (short for Wikipedia) we are to give a certain degree of subordination to these policies. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, you're probably going to hear a lot about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It came up with this (esp. this) conclusion. Here is a link that gives a little insight on the topic. Note: this topic has already been tried on the talk pages; we'll just have to wait until the decision is brought up again in the court and enough Creationist lawyers are editing Wikipedia! =) P.S. Check this out! Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more stuff to look at: WP:BETTER, WP:LASTWORD, and WP:COMPETENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And therefore WP:FIVE. If you ever become involved in an article deletion discussion and I'm sure you will, check out WP:ATA. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For a complete list of policies, try WP:LOP. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of these policies seem a little weird. I think there's some bias in a few of them too. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is bias in most of WP policies. The bias is towards reliable sources, assumptions of good faith, and collaboration.--Adam in MO Talk 10:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And in the case of scientific articles, towards a scientific view. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. N^oformation ^Talk 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to get really technical, even articles that just pour out a bunch of facts are biased. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a secular/atheistic/anti-religion bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, as has been pointed out before, repeated comments about how certain editors are atheists, or have an "atheist bias" are not appropriate. Comments like that break the spirit (if not letter) of WP:AGF, which is a pillar of this site. Edit summaries like this and this are simply unacceptable. I don't know how to express this clearer than I have before: Your continued participation in these articles is causing an obvious degradation in your behavior, and if it continues, you will be blocked from editing. If you care to continue editing here, your behavior needs to see a drastic change. I would strongly recommend you stop editing, and speak with your mentor about these problems before you continue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as they continue calling me a "fundamentalist", "nutjob", etc. I will continue calling them atheists. Fair is fair. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No one called you a nutjob. You, however, have disparagingly characterized other editors as "atheists" when they have not publicly identified their religious views. We've been over this before, so I didn't expect you to have a change of heart and modify your behavior. My comment was only to inform you, so you aren't surprised later on, that if it continues, it will result in consequences you may not find favorable. Take my advice or leave it, but don't claim you didn't know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of them have "atheist", "secularist", "Dawkinist", etc right on their user page. Also, by some of their behavior, I can tell that they're atheists. I still don't understand how calling an atheist "an atheist" is offensive. Can you plaese show my how it is offensive? Zenkai251 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "by their behavior, I can tell"-part is presumptuous and offensive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I truly don't mean to be offensive and I'm sorry if I come off that way. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1) Dougweller has no such label, and being a "Dawkinist" does not make one an atheist, so neither user has self-identified. 2) Disparaging remarks about another editor's religious convictions are never appropriate, even if they belong to that group. This behavior serves only to poison the well, and stifles collaboration. 3) It is a violation of WP:AGF to attribute motives to a user, such as claiming they are "ganging up on you" due solely to their supposed religious affiliation. 4) We've discussed this before. IIRC, you agreed to stop. I'm working right now, and don't have time to continue this conversation. If you have questions, please ask your mentor. Please consider my notice above as a final warning regarding this issue. You may take my advice or leave it as you see fit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So them calling me a "crazy Christian Fundamentalist" is alright, but I can't call them atheists? (I'm not talking about anyone in particular). This seems like a double-standard. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "crazy"-part, no. The rest you pretty much stated yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was a "fundamentalist". Zenkai251 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no other kind of Christian that believes in the creation story of Genesis literally or denies that it's a myth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you make an assumption about me! And you say I can't assume you're an atheist? Zenkai251 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not making an assumption, I'm going by the definition. When have I told you that I think there's no God? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, do you believe in God? If you don't, that means my point is correct. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If that was the case, you'd be correct indeed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so do you believe in Him or not? Zenkai251 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On wikipedia, it is none of your business to quiz other people about this; and that's the lesson you need to learn. If we where elsewhere, I'd answer. But not here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he believes. Comment on content, not on contributors. N^oformation ^Talk 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll refrain from calling people atheists unless they say that they are one. But only if they refrain from calling me a fundamentalist. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't make statements that are fundamentalist, and I'm sure they won't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not enough. Even if you know for a fact that someone is an atheist, you should not comment on other editors. If someone comments on you then report it but don't use that as an excuse to do it yourself. See WP:NOTTHEM. N^oformation ^Talk 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'm not entirely sure how to report someone. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reports of personal attacks can be made at WP:ANI N^oformation ^Talk 00:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

or @ WP:WQA. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we cease the denominating? I am, to a degree, a fundamentalist. I know many people with similar beliefs regarding creation on the liberalist side, atheists who support Intelligent design, those who don't. Many Christians don't either. Many do. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Zenkai251 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

edit comment on Adam

Hi. I don't want to get into a more general discussion on this topic, but I noticed that for this edit your commment was "he (Adam) is not only in the creation narrative, but referred to throughout the Bible". I looked in my copy of Jones' "Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names" and there it is clear that in the Old Testament, at least, Adam appears only in Genesis chapters 2 to 5. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he's mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament and I'm just about positive he's mentioned in the New Testament also. My edit seemed pretty reasonable, but someone reverted it for no reason at all. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam is mentioned in Romans and Luke but only in reference to family lineage (Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"). Outside of that he is not mentioned in the New Testament. He is mentioned in Chronicles and Deuteronomy, as well as a couple more books - but only in passing (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:8: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.)

Please do not say that I did not give a reason for reverting as this is obviously not true, I very clearly did: "Adam is just barely mentioned out of genesis and usually in passing. His main role is in the creation myth so it makes more sense to refer to it." One of the key pillars of wikipedia is WP:V, so next time you make an edit please don't be "pretty sure," be 100% sure that it's sourced. If it is not, or if it contradicts sources, it will be reverted. I have the sneaking suspicion that your edit was more about your problem referring to Christian creation as a myth, but if you are going to be a contributor to Wikipedia this is something you have to accept - we are a secular encyclopedia, and to the outside world, there is literally no difference between Genesis and any other creation myth. The adherents of a religion always believe that theirs is different and true, but to impartial observers there is difference only in the details, not the overall picture. N^oformation

Talk 00:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When I say that you don't have a reason, I mean that you don't have a good reason. And when you say "to the outside world, there is no difference between Genesis and other creation stories" you are quite mistaken. Did you know that over half of the world's population believes in the Genesis creation?

You have demonstrated that you are not in the mainstream here when it comes to your positions on what are good and bad reasons for edits so keep that in mind. Secondly, you didn't say that I didn't give a good reason, you said I didn't give a reason, so please be more specific in the future.

I noticed that you did not bother presenting an argument against my reasoning, rather you just didn't like it, which I imagine is because what you said regarding Adam is wrong, at least according to the Bible. Lastly, when I said "outside world," I clearly mean people who are "outside" of the Christian and/or religious world (though to be fair, being Christian does not mean that you believe in the Genesis account of creation; most educated Christians absolutely do not; it's generally uneducated people who take it literally, according to many sources).

There is a quote, I don't remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of "when you understand why you dismiss the gods of other religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This illustrates perfectly the point I was trying to make: that a person not partial to religion X will see that religion as equally invalid as all others, except possibly their own. To you: Zeus, Krishna and Shiva are all invalid. To a Muslim: Zeus, Krishna, Shiva and Jesus are invalid. To a practitioner of ancient Mayan religion, all those gods are invalid. A wholly impartial observer recognizes that all religions have exactly one source of evidence: a book written by cavemen. None the less, it doesn't matter how many people believe it; at one point most of the world followed something akin to Hinduism, but that didn't make it true. N^oformation ^Talk 04:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You say only the uneducated believe in Genesis? That's a typical BS statement from biased individuals. BTW, what I said about Adam was correct and you even proved my point for me. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are quite ignorant when it comes to the Bible. It was not written by cavemen; it was written by prophets, apostles, etc. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I said most. I would take my time posting the sources for you if I thought it would make a difference but we both know that you would find a way to rationalize it away. What you said about Adam is so obviously not correct it makes me wonder if we're reading the same talk page. Adam is barely mentioned outside of Genesis, and when he is it's not about him, it's about other people who were related to him - what more do I need to say to get you to understand this?

Sorry I meant to say goat-herders (I really did, cavemen must have an association with goat herders in my mind). Apostles, prophets? Sure, to you; just like Krishna was a prophet to the Hindus.

Regarding my ignorance of the Bible: I have read it cover to cover more than once. The irony of your statement was that it was me, a non-Christian, who knew that Adam was barely mentioned outside of Genesis, while you were "pretty sure" about Adam's role later on. N^oformation ^Talk 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My point about Adam was correct. You even provided examples of it. Of course I know he didn't serve much of a role outside of Genesis(he was dead after all). And when I say "I'm pretty sure", it means I'm 99.99999% sure, but there's a tiny, miniscule chance that I'm mistaken. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In Deuteronomy 32:8, for example, the phrase is Template:Lang-he, which in many translations does not appear as "sons of Adam" but more often "children of men" or some such. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also a good point. I used the NKJ version because it is more liberal than others in its use of "Adam," but even then there is not much. N^oformation ^Talk 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note, Noformation that calling Jesus invalid to a Muslim would probably make them want to defend him. Most Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but not God. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I almost put that in parenthesis but didn't think it would be relevant. While they do view him as a prophet, they definitely don't consider him the son of god. Incidentally, if more Muslims and Christians in certain parts of the world were aware that Islam and Christianity have a great deal in common and a large scriptural mutual respect, the world might not be such a violent place. N^oformation ^Talk 21:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Without adding violence to either, it could be w/out that. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question...

...here ... nobody "changed [your] question". I simply concatenated your thread onto my own earlier one on the same issue. As my initial comment was not-after and not-in-reply-to your own, it made no sense (and was a borderline violation of WP:TALK) to refactor it to make it appear that it was. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought mine was first and then you changed it. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the times. I guess I was still typing mine when yours was posted. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably what happened, and it happens all the time. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to not edit war, but I will try my best not to. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote my spiritual guru: "Do or do not, there is no try." It would be wise for you to self impose a 1rr rule - to not make more than one revision to a page without discussing it. See also WP:BRD. Because you have edit warred so much in the past, an admin will likely read into even a couple RRs as edit warring, and block lengths increase with time. For the next violation I would expect a week, then a month, and then indef. N^oformation ^Talk 00:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take it to the discussion page after 1rr next time. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good decision, Zenkai. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 13:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To help you to see that you're not alone, have a look at Biblical cosmology: I wanted (and still want) to carry out a major re-write, but one editor objected very strongly. I took it to the admins because I felt I couldn't make headway on the Talk page, and we're now getting closer together. Mostly this is a process of establishing mutual trust between us - a war isn't going to help anyone, and it certainly won't help me if I get a reputation for being aggressive. Anyway, as your mentor says, take it slow, take it easy, and assume always that the other guy has neither horns nor tail nor pitchfork but simply a different point of view. Oh, merry Christmas :) PiCo (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, merry Christmas. :) Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of the word "myth", I would suggest that you consult virtually any of the recent standard encyclopedias available regarding their definition of the word "myth". The academic meaning of the word "myth", and the primary definitions in most of those works, specifically do not include any explicit intimation that the material being called "mythic" is true or false. The question then would be whether the Mythology Project would be able to help develop the article. Personally, as someone who is at least a member of virtually all the religion related projects, including mythology, I would have to say that it could very easily help develop and maintain the article, particularly in regards to any possible linkages to other creation myths. I desperately wish that you and the others who seem to have such a strong opposition to the word "myth" would realize that the use of the word does not necessarily in any way express or directly imply that the topic being discussed is not factually accurate. While one of the meanings of the word "myth" is "false story," according to several dictionaries, that particular definition is almost always one of the later definitions presented, meaning that specific definition is one of the less frequent ways in which the word is used. That being the case, there is no clear academic basis for objecting to the use of the word "myth", because the alleged implication that the use of the word means that the story being discussed is false is itself not particularly well supported by the available evidence. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but when most people see the word "myth", the first thing that comes to mind is "falsehood", etc. As that is the most well know definition. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we really are supposed to base our content based on what "most of the people," particularly including non-experts, think of the word as meaning. However, if you were to wish to pursue the matter, I think filing a request for comment as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and possibly leaving a note on the talk page of WP:AVOID with a link to the discussion, might be the best way to get the broadest base of input on the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. And Merry Christmas guys :) Zenkai251 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what the average person thinks when they see the word myth? Why do you assume that people don't understand that the word, like many words, has multiple meanings that depend on context? That you may not have known does not mean that most people don't know. Anyway, we are an encyclopedia and our job is to report what experts say and this is what the experts say. NPOV is specifically written for situations like this, wherein an editor has an opinion that is different than the expert opinion, N^oformation ^Talk 23:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a known fact that the most common usage of "myth" implies a falsehood. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that it's the most common usage? Do you have sources stating as such? Has a survey been conducted that asks? Or is it that in your experience it's the most common usage? N^oformation ^Talk 00:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say it's not the most common usage? Zenkai251 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how "reliable" this is, but it was one of the first things to come up in google: http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/mythweb99/definingmyth.html Zenkai251 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO Zenkai is right, the average reader does equate "myth" with "fiction". But Wikipedia is supposed to be based on scholarly sources, and therefore we use "myth" in a scholarly sense. It's usually possible, when writing/editing articles, to make clear that we're doing this. It's a question of using good sources. PiCo (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong to have as much faith in my fellow man to understand the differences between words in different contexts. Anyway, here what you linked me to "For a contemporary definition of myth, see Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary : Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensible historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon; parable, allegory; an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group." This is pretty much the definition we use here on Wikipedia.

As far as me having sources that say it's not the most common usage...do you even understand what you are asking for when you ask something like that? Do you think I could find sources that say that the most common usage of "myth" is not "a tree bearing monster that tortures bunnies?" Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of the burden of proof? All words have specific and sometimes multiple meanings; when attempting to find sources for those meanings, one would expect to find positive sources - i.e. sources that say what something is - one will generally be hard pressed to find negative sources - i.e. sources that say what something is not. Because any word is a few things, and it is not all other things.

Lastly, I am making no statement as to what the most common understanding of the word is - I don't know and neither do you. When you say that something is X, then you have the burden of providing proof of that assertion. Stop pretending that you have some sort of magical understanding of things that are clearly far beyond you. Will you please just acknowlege that you understand that Wikipedia uses scholarly definition and not what Zenkai thinks is the most common layman's definition? The sooner you can acknowledge that, the sooner this ridiculous topic can die. N^oformation ^Talk 03:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored the last paragraph in my link, which states the most common usage of "myth". I know the scholarly definition, but the average readers might not. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you please just acknowlege that you understand that Wikipedia uses scholarly definition and not what Zenkai thinks is the most common layman's definition? The sooner you can acknowledge that, the sooner this ridiculous topic can die N^oformation ^Talk 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how we are debating what the word 'myth' means . . . on Zenkai's Talk Page. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 12:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

P.P.P.P.S. I find this very interesting. Have a look at it, Zenkai. Wekn reven ^Confer 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

EW warning

And here we are again... You've now reverted three times on a topic you've been nearly topic banned from in the past. A report on WP:AN3 regarding this incident would result in a block. I'm not going to make that report at this time, but you need to stop. Speak with your mentor about this before reverting again. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It was actually twice. However, my edit was actually correct, but some editors let their bias get in the way. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're correct: It was 2 reverts within 3 edits. Your edits still constitute edit warring, and my comments above regarding them still stand. "I'm right so edit warring is okay" is not a valid argument, and we've been over that before. You either need to drastically change your approach to handling this topic, or back away from the topic altogether. Otherwise, you are going to end up with community sanctions in very short order. I'm not rehashing this discussion again. You have an official mentor now, and you know the ropes, so you have plenty of resources to pursue if you need help or advice. If you begin falling back into problematic behavior like this, the next step is a noticeboard. You can choose to use that information as you see fit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello, Zenkai251. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR

It was 3, not 2 - and please remember that 3 is not an entitlement. I hope you've read WP:3RR carefully. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it twice; not three times. That's a fact. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I guess the one changing a section heading probably wouldn't be classed as a revert - but if there was an argument about whether 'possible influences' should be in the article, then that change might be seen as edit warring even if it wasn't actually a revert. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with sources for more pov on Genesis

Hi, I just saw the long conversation / debate you have going at Genesis Creation Narrative. It makes me angry to see how certain voices with their head firmly up an ivory tower are outright lying to you - saying things like "all sources agree that Genesis was copied from Sumerian, and a myth, with maybe one exception. There is now universal consensus for this hypothesis, thus anyone who dissents from the hypothesis is a heretic and inadmissible, because as we just said, there is universal consensus for this hypothesis".

Not only is that a circular argument fallacy, but it's blatantly untrue. There is NO consensus whatsoever. Have you seen the range of views from theologians I have assembled here?

These guys remind me of an immature, hateful little girl in third grade recess.

"'Everyone thinks you're ugly."

"Not everyone. I don't think I'm ugly."

"Yeah, but you don't count. So everyone thinks you're ugly."

"My mother doesn't think I'm ugly".

"She doesn't count either. So EVERYONE thinks you're ugly."

"The girls in 4th grade don't think I'm ugly."

"Yeah, well they don't count either. Only me and my friends count. And we all think you're ugly. So there. Everyone agrees."

Remember, the best part is always when you look at this same girl 10 years later and she is the biggest hag in the county! Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) That link is very helpful.

I wonder why some people assume that there's a universal consensus. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They should know better. The vast number of theologians who have specifically stated their viewpoint that Genesis does not qualify for the genre of myth has been pointed out to them innumerable times. And guess what? This cadre of wikipedia editors is smarter than any theologian who says different, and can prove why they are correct and those theologians are all mistaken, and therefore this cadre of wikipedia editors is authorized to dismiss any dissenting theologian from consideration, no matter who he is. They probably see you as fresh blood, so they can pretend to you that "they didn't hear that" and assert with all their customary arrogance that nobody out there has ever once disputed their non-POV that Genesis is a myth. Sometimes it helps a little to try a template like Template:Toofewopinions. BTW our founder Jimbo Wales has also taken a dim view of their methods on past occasions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment here User:Til Eulenspiegel. I looked at User:Zenkai251's talk page as well as the discussion you referenced and found that some individuals are being downright mean with User:Zenkai251. I'm glad to see that you've offered him some help. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noformation (talk · contribs)

Hello. Per this edit, Noformation has indicated that he does not wish to discuss your accusation of personal attacks any longer. Your repeated attempts to resume this discussion could be construed as harassment. Please discontinue this discussion.

If you think that this user's edits do constitute personal attacks, you are free to open a thread at WP:AN/I about the matter. --Chris (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I will go to ANI right now. However, if he does it one more time, I'll open a thread there. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR at Genesis creation narrative

Hey, didn't want to leave a unfriendly looking 3RR template here, but just wanted to let you know that you've hit 3RR on Genesis creation narrative, and if you revert again you'd probably get reported at WP:3RRNB. Not saying that as a threat or anything, please don't misunderstand, just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware, so that you don't end up getting blocked over losing track of the number of reverts you've made (I've done it myself, so I know how easy it can be). Also, wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit at Creation myth, and left a message on the talk page, if you'd like to discuss it. I don't necessarily disagree with the edit outright, but I think it might need some discussion first. Cheers. - SudoGhost 05:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SudoGhost. I'll refrain from reverting the edits until we've reached a good consensus. Zenkai251 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Beware the Hrafn! Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously suggest not making any further edits to the article space for at least 36 hours and don't respond immediately on the talk page as well. Take some time away for the topic as it seems you are becoming heated and the distance may do you some good. The topic will carry on if you do take some time away. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter is right. Long after we're all dead and receiving our eternal reward, or fertilising the tulips, according to taste, Wikipedia will be here - and the articles it carries will look nothing like the words we fight over today. Don't let wikipedia rule your life. PiCo (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, at least when we die we do something good for the soil. When WP dies... Anyway, just take a little break and enjoy editing other articles - or take a complete break. Happy upcoming week end! Wekn reven ^Confer 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a little note on your last edit - be careful when reverting your own edits: it is possible to 3RR yourself, and has happened to several editors. Usu. better to do it manually. Enjoy further editing! Wekn reven ^Confer 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I like the new look to your signature. I just made mine shorter not too long ago. Wekn reven ^Confer 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks :) I like yours too. Zenkai _talk 16:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kenneth Tse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugene Rousseau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Congrats, Zenkai! Looks like you're pretty much independent now. I'm looking forward to editing with you in the future. Wekn reven Confer 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Wekn. :) Zenkai _talk 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! Wekn reven 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative

This warning is a bit silly. It always takes two to tango. I think you maybe need to take a step back so the place doesn't get overheated. I've undone the "closing" of that discussion--now you do your part and stop yanking Seb's chain. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, understood. And thank you. Zenkai _talk 03:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. --Chris (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Other users were edit warring; I was not. Zenkai _talk 04:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think you were then you are free to appeal this block and another administrator will review it. --Chris (talk) 04:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Try reading WP:NOTTHEM and then Wikipedia:Appealing a block before commenting further. You were reported for edit warring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also please note that reverting good-faith edits as vandalism (here and here and here) is not permitted (see WP:VAND). Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the edit warring Here as well: [1][2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Say, Zenkai, how many times did you revert each situation? If less than 3, you can appeal the block saying you didn't know under 3 reverts, yet still being involved in edit wars counted as such (assuming this is true) and that you would try to be more careful in the future -- perhaps not reverting at all. Be careful of defending yourself: even if it may seem reasonable, this might happen. In 95 percent of situations the best way to get unblocked (and for good reasons) is to simply apologize (or "apologize") and promise to try harder. This essay may be of help. Wekn reven 15:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Wekn. And yes, it was under 3 times for each article. I made sure to stay under 3 to avoid being blocked, but somehow I still got blocked anyways. Zenkai _talk 16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)