User talk:Blast&gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Blast&gas! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Sædontalk 00:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Blast&gas, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Blast&gas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Intelligent Design 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.   — Jess· Δ 17:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

HEY! I didnt even do 2 reverts let alone 3. I was told that I should edit when I saw grammar errors. And I edited a bad link. Does this rule apply to those that REVERT me?? 18:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:EW. Users are not entitled to 3 reverts. 3 reverts is just a bright line over which point an editor will be blocked. Yes, the rule applies equally to the editors reverting you. However, no editor has reverted you more than once; you have been reverted by a multitude of experienced editors. That should tell you to take your concerns to the talk page and discuss them, gaining consensus before reintroducing your edit. Please read WP:EW carefully, and note that a revert is any edit which undoes, wholly or in part, another user. Reverts count for the same or different material. These are reverts from you in the last 24 hours: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I understand you're new, and it takes some time to acclimate to our policies here. Don't worry: nothing is going to happen this time. But, take this as an opportunity to read up on our policy regarding edit warring. Please do not revert again until consensus is established on the talk page.   — Jess· Δ 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it should go without saying that if you have any questions, you're always welcome to come by my talk page and ask. Please don't take reversions of your edits personally. We're all operating in good faith and collegiality. Sometimes disagreements happen over content, and we resolve that by discussing it on the talk page. There's lots to do here. Don't get too attached to a single change. All the best,   — Jess· Δ 19:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


'Your recent editing history at Intelligent Design shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.'

... jess please explain why you think this is true. thanks! Blast&gas (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I explained above. You reinserted disputed changes 4 times in 24 hours. That's an edit war, and a violation of 3rr too. Please read WP:EW carefully for an explanation of edit warring and examples. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No , Jess that is NOT true. I made some changes and people did not like them so I changed those changes to adapt to what people said they did not like about the changes. Did you really look at the changes? Blast&gas (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Blast, I'm not arguing. I'm simply describing the situation to you. It's not a big deal; you didn't know what edit warring was before because you're a new editor, but now you do. Please take the advice of tenured editors when it is offered, as it will take you a bit of time to get acclimated with our policies. What you did was edit warring. Had someone warned you before your 4th revert and filed a report at AN3, you would have been temporarily blocked so the edit war would not continue. None of us wanted that, so you're in the clear now. Please understand that's what edit warring is, and please don't repeat that behavior.   — Jess· Δ 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OK so lets say I make a change and someone reverts it for reason A. and then I correct that and change it to accomodate his suggestion. is the edit warring? see i did NOT " disputed changes 4 times in 24 hours. " also one poster accused me of something i did not do at all. Blast&gas (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is edit warring. It is considered edit warring whenever you reverse the edit of another editor, for any reason. If they revert your change, discuss it with them on the talk page and make your new proposal there. There will be occasions when you need to re-revert an editor once (such as vandalism, or they've made a change against consensus, etc), but those occasions are rare, and you should never repeatedly revert after that. Reverting 4 times in 24 hours is blockable, regardless of the circumstances or the discussion.   — Jess· Δ 22:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Look at the 4 edits I provided links to above. In each of those edits, you are making changes to the same sections, often with the same (or nearly the same) wording. The fact that your edit was reverted the first time means that it was disputed, so by reinserting it, you are "reinserting disputed material 4 times in 24 hours". Please read WP:BRD, as it's important; the very next step after being reverted is discussing your change on the talk page and waiting for consensus to form.   — Jess· Δ 22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


thanks didnt know that. see i thought i changed it then they didnt like it so i changed it differently. see i did not revert a change. i made a NEW change so would that be considered warning. i was trying different things and trying to hit on one that would stick Blast&gas (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I understand. Usually, when an edit is reverted, it's best not to make further changes to that section before the issue is discussed. Lean heavily on the talk page, and you'll be fine. As long as you understand what edit warring is now, then we're all set. Edit warring is the most common stumbling block for new editors (including me, a long time ago!) It's obvious you're operating in good faith. In fact, I think you've identified real issues in the article that we'll need to address somehow. We might not agree in each case on the wording to fix them, but we'll surely figure something out. Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll see you on the ID talk page (as soon as I have some free time!) :)   — Jess· Δ 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, there's one other thing I want to point out... You're getting resistance to changes now for two reasons. 1) The edit warring poisoned the well a bit. That'll work itself out in time. Just talk the issues out a lot, and show you're willing to work with the other editors, and they'll come around. 2) The ID article is a high profile, featured article. As with any high profile article in the religion topic, it can be controversial at times. It's sometimes very difficult to change those articles, because a lot of people are watching them and we get a lot of drive-by POV edits, so editors are on "high alert" for any changes that might not be 100% positive. Starting out by editing a high profile article like that can be tough. You might want to find a less controversial area to start out in, and come back to ID later. But, if you decide to stick with it, just don't take the resistance personally. Work with everyone, do what you can, and let the other stuff go. Don't beat a dead horse or get bummed out by not being able to make a certain change. Anyway, that's just my advice. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll add a third reason. We're constrained to use the vocabulary as it is used in reliable sources. You're suggesting edits that may make more sense to you, but do not make sense to someone familiar with the relavent literature. You may not like the fact that experts allow "science" to "extend" or "breaches" to be "barred", but your likes and dislikes don't count for much when it comes to domain-specific language. You can get around this by demonstrating that you know what you're talking about, and you can do that by citing the literature that supports the constructions you prefer. That's still no guarantee that the edits will go in, but that least you will have elevate the discussion to a judgement call between reliable sources rather than a judgement call between a reliable source and your opinion. GaramondLethe 13:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And I'll add #4. You have now started four separate sections on the talk page in very quick order, none of which are resolved. You are becoming tendentious and are so far not a net benefit to the project. Intelligent design is a featured article, which means it has been found to meet very high standards. You need to slow down and stop starting multiple discussions at once, or you run the risk of everyone simply writing you off as a spammy pain not worth trying to respond to, as you demand so very much attention and time from everyone. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

.... spammy pain?? wow now THAT was a personal attack. go read some rules. LOL! 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks. but i dont know why a few posters got so bent out of shape. i was trying to correct some run on sentences. Blast&gas (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to be the fourth editor to explain to you that you did not "correct some run on sentences" - they were complex sentences, not run on sentences; and your edits changed the meaning of those sentences. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


hey killer, settle down! you are really over reacting. look already my ideas are being adapted. ooncentrate on the article and get off my case. you are just ticked cuz i know grammar better than you. Blast&gas (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


killer, if you look at this page you will see that jess and i had a nice conversation thru most of it. then you and gar come in with guns ablazing seemly try to stir things up. seems like you are baiting me. look jess explain the revert thing to me and i have not reverted since so LAY OFF. Blast&gas (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand. I am trying to help you. You need to slow down and listen to the feedback experienced editors are giving you; they are all trying to help you. They are not trying to start a fight with you. They are explaining policy and how Wikipedia works to you. It would be to your benefit to listen and learn, rather than reacting in a defensive manner. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 18:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

hey jess, thanks for your help[edit]

i dont know why those other guys jumped on me so hard. i looked over that revert thing and i think what happened is that i made that change and then came back a couple hours later and saw that it was the way in originally was and thought that i hadnt clicked save then i figured out how the history workds maybe a day ago. i just think this article has some odd phrasing.

The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

like this one ^

now i did change that first sentence cuz i thought it was clumsy and that stuck. i tried to change this one and this is the one that got reverted about 3 times. but i did not know that was 'warring'. see i do programming and a lot of times what i do and i think others do is make a change in the program and then compile it to see if it works and then if it doesnt try again till it finally is ok. i didnt think my changes were so large that they changed the meaning of the context. just thought my phrasing was better

we have something in common. i took french and spoke it a bit years ago and just started taking spanish. wow when i first started spanish this semester every time i tried to say something in spanish i always reverted to french. i had like a 2 way toggle in my brain that just went from english or french. i finally am to the point where i have to some degree a 3 way toggle lol!

i think i am very good at english grammmar. well not here cuz i am just free associating mostly. i think ID is an interesting subject and like how this article exposes the motivation behind it. that panda thing is condemning and conclusive along with the wedge document. so i was reading the article and saw at least what i thought was a lot of grammar and phrasing errors. well any how i think i contribed a bit by making that 1st sentence better

do you find it hard to switch from french to spanish?

anyhow

The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

i changed to :

Many of the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

and was reverted and i dont see why. to me when a person says. dogs hate cats it is very indefinite. its ok for colloq speech but not for and encycl. see because is it many or a few or all or most. you see what i mean. that is left hanging and sounds like a politiciqn making a speech and not wanting to commit. thats why i like my change to the first sentence cuz it comes right out front and says what is should say.

like you could say 'mexicans are catholic' well not exactly. yes for the most part. so it is more correct to say 'most mexicans are catholic. see, i dont see how ALL the leading propoents of ID are assc with DI. or are they? and if they are then say it! : All the lead proponents ..... do you see what i mean?

studying spanish now helps me with some of these things also cuz as you know in spanish you have to wiggle around a little more than in english to make some points. like the whole 'me gustas' and 'mas alto' etc type things which are diff in english. so when someone says to me: birds fly, the are being weasly because do you mean ALL, some, few, many. you get my point. well tell me your opinion and thanks for understanding my situation. Blast&gas (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)