User talk:Boaziah

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Watchmaker analogy, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please see this section of fringe theories on Wikipedia, where intelligent design is specifically mentioned. Please provide reliable sources without individual synthesis of sources. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per a note on Intelligent design:

NOTE: The wording of the first sentence of this article is the result of extensive discussion on the talk page, and is supported by reliable sources. If you disagree with it, please take your point to the talk page.

This is also good advice for Watchmaker analogy, and I suggest that you go to the talk page to discuss what you believe is biased language. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are "reliable sources"? Sources that agree with what you believe? Boaziah (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm once again going to direct you to the article's talk page, where you can discuss the content of the page with involved editors. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 07:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Watchmaker analogy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 07:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Watchmaker analogy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 10:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmaker analogy

Your posts at Talk:Watchmaker analogy are very disrespectful ("Clearly this is casting pearls before swine", "Do you enjoy answering for other people?", "You're here to preach atheism", etc.) That is not acceptable here. Stop bludgeoning the discussion and assuming bad faith of your fellow editors, or you will be page-blocked from that talkpage as well as the article Watchmaker analogy itself (in view of your previous tendentious editing and edit warring there). Please follow the links I have provided. Bishonen | tålk 04:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Right, so the guy I was responding to is allowed to call me a hyper-religious nut, call my arguments "bullshit", etc. but that's not bludgeoning the discussion? "Casting pearls before swine" is a common biblical expression, it means to waste time. "Do you enjoy answering for other people?" is a question and "You're here to preach atheism" is my opinion of what that user was doing as opposed to anything constructive. What a joke. Boaziah (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NPC reference notwithstanding. Adakiko (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was repeating lines like an NPC in a video game. Boaziah (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]