User talk:Sblankman

Welcome!

Hello, Sblankman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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 your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Specifically, you've added information making a synthesis or analysis of the Bible, which is a primary source. You have to show verification from a reliable source for the analysis or arguments you're putting forward, as your addition is against the "no original research" policy. . dave souza, talk 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. dave souza, talk 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to email

Thanks for the email. You ask me to "explain your issues with the Progressive Creationist views that were written. My contributions were based off years of a comprehensive background on the subject. Both the Biblical and Scientific references were cited and useful." All the sources you've added are quotations from the Bible, which is a primary source. You've then added arguments with internal links (Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources) which may well be based on your background on the subject, but our verifiability policy requires us to only show information that has been published in a reliable source. Your addition is against the "no original research" policy, and for it to be added you have to find a published view by an expert on the subject that explicitly makes the same arguments. Note that articles should generally be based on a secondary or third party source, preferably an external expert on the subject such as Ron Numbers. Publications by Progressive Creationists are "self-published sources" or "questionable sources", which have to be treated carefully as shown on the linked policy page. Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry I'm not very organised for secure email – you'll probably find it better in general anyway to just post proposals on your talk page in a discussion, or on the article talk page.

Unless I'm missing something, you're still putting primary sources or established sources together to create a new synthesis, which is "original research". Thus, "Progressive Creationists contend that at the end of each “day”, with the exception of the seventh “day” in the Creation account, the phrase, “…and there was evening and there was morning,” [1]" doesn't just need a bible quotation, it needs a source like Ron Numbers saying "all Progressive Creationists use the phrase this way", or less ideally "in their standard text the Progressive Creationists of Alberta use the phrase this way". That's subject to WP:SPS restrictions. Similarly, unless NASA mentions the progressive creationist claim in the source, it's not a source for the claim that "Progressive creationists argue that this continued creative rest of God is further supported by the Law of Conservation of Mass [2]. So, what you need is sources making the argument you're putting together, not sources you use to make your own argument. WP:NOR is essential on Wikipedia, but it can be confusing to newcomers as it's not needed for many websites which are in the business of publishing new material. It's just that the principle of verifying everything from published sources is at the heart of what we're doing. Anyway, that's me done for the night. Good luck with the search for references! dave souza, talk 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may find this interesting, if nothing else as an example of a source presenting an analysis of primary sources – we can report what it says, but can't draw our own conclusions from the primary sources. . dave souza, talk 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross reference

Good morning! You've added a reference, the formatting using a template went astray at first, so I've corrected it by adding *{{cite book at the start, and adding the closing }} brackets that make the Wikipedia:Citation templates work.[3] As a reference, it's a good citation for a summary of the views of Hugh Ross (creationist), but that should be made clear at the outset – "Hugh Ross says that..." or equivalent – and can't be taken as applying to other proponents of Progressive creationism. Thanks for working on this, . dave souza, talk 10:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at my emails, that does look like an improvement. There are a huge number of references to the Bible, it might be possible to do without them or simply put the chapter/verse number into your text, either as Genesis 1 or (Genesis 1) for example. You could then add one reference to Biblegateway. Alternatively, Genesis 1 works as an internal link, which is possibly the best answer. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners shows how to use "ref" tags creating a link down to references in the notes section, your paragraph as a whole could have a reference to Ross (1994) p300–301 – put in the page numbers you used! Don't hesitate to edit talk pages, that's what they're for – the main thing is to add new items at the bottom of the page, best done by clicking the edit button on the current bottom itsm, and put in a new section heading by typing ==New heading== for example. See WP:BOLD, and don't worry if people argue or want to change things, just try to learn from their advice and discuss anything contentious on the article talk page. Happy editing! . dave souza, talk 10:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for bringing this up on my talk page, though you forgot to add your comment at the foot! Unfortunately before I could respond, another editor has removed it as overburdened with links and possibly giving undue weight to Ross. I've moved it to the talk page for discussion.[4] I've included some suggested improvements, it would also be useful if you could find third party sources showing the significance of Ross's views – ToA is one good place to look, the NCSE is another well respected source. The fact that views have been criticised helps to establish that they're notable, as well as giving alternative views about the views. Look forward to your responses on the article talk page, remember to assume good faith and be civil! (these links are well worth reading). . dave souza, talk 11:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]