You just cost me six thousand dollars

Recent edit to Void (astronomy)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Void (astronomy), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 22:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Big bang theory

Well first of all, I will point you to WP:AGF, a rule that says you are required to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Your post is obviously the opposite of this. We'd all collaborate much better if we started with the base assumption that each other are trying to help the encyclopedia.
Second of all, no, I obviously don't mean my opinion. It is painstakingly obvious that the scientific consensus I refer to is the general consensus of relevant scientists - in this case, mostly astronomers and physicists, and some geologists perhaps. Scientific consensus is a term on wikipedia. It has its own article you can look at if you're not sure what it is. I did not claim the mantle of anything. Millions of edits take place on wikipedia every day. I happened to be online at the right time and saw the edits in question on my watchlist, checked them out, and decided that they were not an improvement for various reasons (some of which I gave in the edit summary). Hence, I reverted the edits. This is common procedure on wikipedia. The next step, if you strongly disagree with me, is to go to the relevant article's talk pages and start a thread about your desired changes - post what the article currently says, what you want it to say, and give policy-based reasons why you think the change is an improvement. Then wait for a response. In a relatively popular article like this one, you should get one within a day or so. In some lesser known articles, it might take a month or more to get a reply. This is enumerated in WP:BRD.
Also, since we're speaking of scientific consensus, another few relevant policy articles to check out are WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, which explains which sources are acceptable and which aren't and how we should weight articles. Basically it says articles should be weighted in accordance with the relevant and valid sources. If 90% of sources are against an idea, than 90% of the article should be against it. For example, some people vehemently believe the world is flat. However, they are in such a HUGE minority that they are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of relevant experts, and as such, even the inclusion of one sentence on flat earth "theory" in the Earth article would be undue weight. I believe that the eternal universe people are in such a large minority right now, that the idea doesn't merit inclusion at all, and thus, I removed it. If you want to disagree, by all means, discuss it on the talk page. The proper response, however, is not to blast me on my talk page for daring to revert your edits.Farsight001 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You could have discussed why you deleted my edicts here but you didn't - and since you're the upholder of the principles of collaborative effort why not? You're deleting reputable sources supposedly on the basis of 'scientific consensus' yet you won't provide any evidence to support your claims of what that consensus is. That's not argument that's just saying 'i know better than you'.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

He did explain, but you don't want to hear. You're using various Wikipedia-articles as WP:COATRACKs for faith-based "doubts" about scientific theories. Your statement at User talk:Farsight001#By 'scientific consensus' you mean your opinion?,

"You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?"

is cheap rhetorics, as you know yourself. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wiki-policies, and don't use it as an faith-propaganda bulletin board. See also WP:CHEESE and WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'Faith based doubts about scientific theories'? You're impugning my motives in making presumptions about something you know nothing about. Nothing I've added has any reference to faith - show where there's any reference to faith in anything I've written or alluded to?

If you bothered to check you'd have seen that both sources I've added conform to wikipedia's standards - including the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology. Is that faith based too?

The cheap rhetoric is making reference to 'scientific consensus' but having no intention of backing up that claim up with any demonstration of this consensus.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean E.J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New York, 1991 pp. 23 & 28. diff Void (Astronomy) diff Supercluster, and Ashwini Kumar Lal and Rhawn Joseph, Big Bang? A Critical Review, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 6, 1533-1547 diff Void (Astronomy)? Well, maybe your point is not faith-based; I said so because your tone and behavior remind so much of faith-oriented editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the Journal of Cosmology is a very dubious source. Sometimes "peer reviewed" means less than it sounds. I know of at least one "peer reviewed" online journal that only published Young Earth Creationist articles. Eric Lerner's book is not a reliable source for your edit at Void (if you really think it is then argue your case at WP:RSN. And the statement that "he existence of voids are problematic for the Big Bang theory of the cosmos, which predicts that the universe is around 13 billion years old." is a violation of our WP:NPOV policy, stating an opinion by a fringe author as though it were a fact. The same applies to your edit at Supercluster. I'll also point out that Lerner isn't "critics". Doug Weller talk 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)