DonaldKronos

NOT FEELING WELCOME AT ALL

What is it about hard work that is so despised within the Wikipedia community? I added to the evolution page, to make it about evolution rather than just about evolution through biological reproduction, and ONCE AGAIN, MY HARD WORK IS IMMEDIATELY DELETED!

Here are the first two paragraphs as I had corrected them...

Evolution in its broadest sense, is the accumulation of change. In this sense, anything in which changes accumulate, evolves. This is true of culture, language, computer software, technology, knowledge, automation, and so on. A quick web search for information about the evolution of any such thing should provide plenty of reference material.

Probably the most well known type of evolution, accumulation of hereditary modification, also known as descent with modification, causes the accumulation of change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Such evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Notice that there is NOTHING off topic or off point, and I DID NOT NEGLECT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES!

Here is what it was reverted back to....

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

In my opinion, that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. I can think of no good reason why anyone would want an encyclopedia to misrepresent the true scope of evolution as pertaining only to or even mostly to biology. Yes, biological evolution is a very important topic, but an evolution page about evolution with an overview of how the process of evolution pertains to many areas of life and science, with a link to a biological evolution page, would in my opinion make much more sense than an evolution page about biological evolution which rather than clarifying from the start that how biological evolution fits into the broader scope of evolution, instead claims that evolution is something biological, as if that is its full scope. This can be improved... and thanks to the work of several people, is being improved. I was very upset by the way I was treated when I tried to help, but I am glad to see that improvements are being made, to allow Wikipedia to better serve humanity. Good work people. I apologize for my failure to do better, and I forgive those I feel could have done better as well. I hope they will forgive me also... but if not, I can live with that. DonaldKronos (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, DonaldKronos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Esper (language), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, 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! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Esper (language)

The article Esper (language) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources discussing this language in-depth (Wikibooks is not sufficient). Does not appear to have a connection to Esperanto discussed in any sources, either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DonaldKronos. You have new messages at I JethroBT's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language)

Because of your circumstances and the current state of your article, I've moved it to a subpage of your userpage here, so you have some time to work on it. I'm concerned it will be removed, and this way, you have more time to add needed sources to the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2014

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Evolution, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Also, go to the article's talk page (Talk:Evolution) and seek consensus for your changes -- that's the standard, not making wild accusation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And seeing your post here, I have to point out WP:OWN and WP:Assume good faith to you. No editor owns their edits here, and you need to assume that editors have good reasons for doing what they do. If you don't want your edits to be revised, modified, or even removed or undone, you probably should not edit here. This is a collaborative project, not just your project. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How is any of this off point?

Evolution in its broadest sense, is the accumulation of change. In this sense, anything in which changes accumulate, evolves. This is true of culture, language, computer software, technology, knowledge, automation, and so on. A quick web search for information about the evolution of any such thing should provide plenty of reference material.

Probably the most well known type of evolution, accumulation of hereditary modification, also known as descent with modification, causes the accumulation of change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Such evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

That was removed, why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldKronos (talk • contribs)

New talk page posts go at the bottom of the section. Most of the material there has nothing to do with biological evolution. The intro summarizes the article, and the article in this case is only about biological evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Evolution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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.

From the Dispute Resolution page... "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." -- Why am I NEVER given such courtesy in here? Am I upset? YES! Should I be? I don't know... but I am! I feel like I am considered less than dirt in here. Should that not bother me? Okay, in this case... there was a message saying not to change the first paragraph without....whatever it was... but I did not notice it at the time, because I do no know of conventions for such things, and they are not obvious.... so I apologize to the community for NOT NOTICING what I should have noticed... but I'm STILL FRUSTRATED AS HELL!

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. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, calm down and quit taking it personally

Seriously, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:OWN. We've explained how to go on about your edits, no one's punishing you for having made them, and you have every opportunity to get over it and find something productive to do instead of throwing a tantrum. If you keep taking every single reversion personally, call editors in good standing vandals for cleaning up your messes, and give a contrarian "nuh-uh!" to every attempt to explain what you need to do, you will wear out your welcome and you will not last for much longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Evolution. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling the people who have reverted you vandals when their edits do not meet the site's definition of vandalism and were made in good faith is considered a personal attack. Seriously, your hissy-fits are just digging you into a deeper hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this "community" has yet to answer the simple question I have BEGGED for an answer to, which is HOW TO COMMUNICATE IN HERE! It's like trying to get a message to someone in a big city without any way of knowing where they are, any of their contact information, or anything else useful for figuting out how to get in contact. It's EXTREMELY frustrating, and nearly eveything I have EVEry WRITTEN for Wikipedia seems to end up deleted.... ALMOST ALWAYS with no explanation, and no way to contact the person who deleted it! I don't even have a clue how to know if you will ever see this, so what am I writing it for?  :(( DonaldKronos (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation for why your edit was initially reverted and replied to your post on my talk page. You ignored both and called me a vandal. Why should people take the time to be civil with you when you insult them and ignore their feedback? Zarcusian (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. So what exactly is going on? If you want to I can help you.--Mishae (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please, I've no doubt your edits are in good faith, but please discuss them on the talk page instead of making major revisions to the page itself. Zarcusian (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange as it seems, I had forgotten how to find the talk page, and did not notice that seemingly obvious "talk" tab. Anyway, I do apologize.... and I left more of an explanation on the evolution talk page now that I have a better idea how to converse in here and am no longer banned. Thanks for your patience. DonaldKronos (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanations were given repeatedly. You refused to pay attention to any of them, and have even responded hostilely calling other vandals instead of bothering to learn how things work here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not ignoring them. I was LOOKING FOR them, but failing to find them. It may not be obvious to people who are used to communicating in here, but the communication system is not exactly intuitive. Anyway.... getting the hang of it now. I hope some day I will be able to help some other person understand, as those who helped me did for me. DonaldKronos (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

References

Edit warring at Evolution

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can reply to the complaint at WP:AN3#User:DonaldKronos reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: ) if you wish. But if you continue to revert at Evolution a block is likedly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Copying

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Evolution into Biological evolution. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Vsmith (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing the best I can. Suffering from a major headache and felt like i was being attacked for trying to fix something that was badly broken, but I did mention on the page that it was an offspring of the other page. Perhaps that was not the language expected, but to me that was giving credit. Anyway, I appreciate you letting me know, and taking care of it this time. I hope the community will find what I started to be a good launching point for a solution. I am considering inviting people from a different community to help out, but I hesitate due to not wanting others to feel as unwelcome as I have. Your politeness and helpfulness is certainly refreshing. :) DonaldKronos (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1. %!&!!! Well, so much for that. I just got done saying thanks for the politeness, and my work was being attacked WHILE I WAS TYPING THAT!

I give up on this place! DonaldKronos (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way. Did you even notice that the material you restored had a featured article icon at the top (the star) and a protected article {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} note at the top that were the result of your copying. Also your "shouting" (all caps) in your Note to the Wikipedia Community section was essentially screaming revert me. We simply don't do stuff like that in article space. You need a big helping of patience to work here and learn to avoid incivil comments. Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I copied such things, is because I have yet to learn what parts of such cryptic things are NECESSARY to not break the page. Editing an existing page is easy. Creating a page is a bit mysterious... and not everyone has nothing better to do than to spend ages trying to figure it out. Again, I was trying to help. I spent considerable time on what I DID do, only to have my work undone, and this is not the first time something like that has happened to me in here.... so asking me to have patience is a bit much. You know, I STILL do not know whether you will see my reply, nor how to address a reply directly to someone.... and no matter how many times I ask people, or point out that I don't know, nobody says. Is it a mystery to EVERYONE, or is in just a secret? In GooglePlus I can address a person by typing a "+" or an "@" character and then slowly typing their name until the right person shows up and I can select it. In Twitter I can type an "@" character followed by the person's Twitter name. In either case, unless the person has opted out of notifications, they will be told that there is a message for them. In here.... one is apparently expected to just wonder whether they are wasting their time... and to be patient. So yes, I was shouting... because I felt like I have no way of being able to be heard. Sorry if you took offense to it. I do not mind if anyone wants to edit or remove such shouting... because at least then I would know SOMEBODY saw it... but it would be nice if when it is at least APPARENTLY meant for a specific person, people would leave that person a chance to see it.

Communication in here is a bit like graffiti artists using the walls in a city to leave messages to each other. PLEASE pass along to whoever can do something about it, that I'm suggesting there has to be a better way. DonaldKronos (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I like your analogy to graffiti artists and walls. Your talk page is your wall and as I have it on my watchlist anytime you write something here (or anyone else does) it shows up on my watchlist. When I log on to WP my watchlist is there so I can see what has changed (or at least the most recent change to a particular page). Another way to get a user's attention is to simply link their username on a talk page (E.g. [[User:vsmith]] added here or an article talk page will prompt an alert at the top of the page, no matter what I'm doing on Wiki) and I'll see it and either respond or not. As for all the rules - I've been around here for 10+ years and have watched the system evolve :) ... and still am sometimes surprised by stuff.

When your block ends, please proceed slowly and with patience. Feel free to ask for clarification on how stuff works and I'll try to help. But if you decide this all isn't for you, I will undestand and wish you well. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Biological evolution. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Evolution and Biological evolution

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.

The full report is at the 3RR board (permalink). Please be aware that you can be indefinitely blocked if you have no interest in following our policies. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I followed policies, and my work was censored. I have no desire to to be unblocked. Why would I want to be part of a community that condones censorship, approves easy deletion of hard work over efforts to do something good for the world, threatens rather than helping, and bans people for trying to find a reasonable compromise while others are walking all over them? DonaldKronos (talk)

You work was not censored and you failed to follow policies. You can either listen to what everyone is saying or not. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia, (and it is very doubtful you are) you will not be allowed to continue here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Well, it seems thanks to someone deleting my work yet again, I ended up re-directed, and complained to the WRONG PERSON about deleting my work.... and now I'm blocked from editing anything but my talk page, so I can't even go and correct THAT. Well, hey... may as well block me from editing my talk page also. THANKS TO WHOEVER BLOCKED ME! I WILL NO LONGER BE WASTING MY TIME ATTEMPTING TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING VALUABLE TO WIKIPEDIA! DonaldKronos (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SqueakBox

Since I am blocked, and unable to post anywhere but here, please, someone pass along my thanks to User_talk:SqueakBox for trying to work with me to make a solution. It is silly that so many people in here seem to think that an "evolution" page should be about a narrow branch of evolution and not even mention how that narrow branch fits into evolution, but I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A COMPROMISE and as far as I got before being BANNED FOR TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_evolution&oldid=639325201 DonaldKronos (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi DonaldKronos. I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia, to assure you that this is a remarkable community effort, and to encourage you to take the time to understand the way it works (including learning policy, not taking the process personally, and practicing civility). Wikipedia editing takes time to understand. TheProfessor (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DonaldKronos, I encourage you to help with a rewrite of the article Evolution (term). You already have a good start. It would be good to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Citing sources, and especially to understand that articles are based on third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you do decide to continue editing for Wikipedia, I encourage you to read Help:Getting started and Wikipedia:Five pillars, to be open to input and discussion (you will get help if you ask), and of course assume good faith and exercise civility. TheProfessor (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether I should insert a reply, or what... no information on how to REPLY to someone. and no, asking for help has done me NO GOOD WHAT SO EVER. I have several books of my own that I have been working on for a very long time, and I think I have a valid point in saying that it is not beneficial to Wikipedia to keep telling people with more important things to do that they need to spend unreasonable amounts of time PREPARING to make a small beneficial edit, let alone a substantial contribution which will likely be deleted anyway. -- Thats meant for "TheProfessor", by the way.... although I STILL do not know how to ADDRESS IT to anyone specific. I've asked. I've searched. I just don't KNOW. :( DonaldKronos (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked for reverting more than 3 times at Evolution, which you were warned about, as was explained earlier. Maybe if you bothered to read messages instead of throwing tantrums whenever you get them, you'd still be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know where to look for what I am supposed to read, nor when or where to look for "messages", nor how to find out. Again.... I have asked. I have searched. I simply CAN NOT FIND AN ANSWER. As a result, I have rarely attempted to contribute.... and when I do, it USUALLY GETS IMMEDIATELY DELETED. As a matter of fact, I know several very good writers who have told me they completely gave up on trying to help in Wikipedia a long time ago for the exact same reason. Some of them have seen my efforts and have commended me on my EXTREME and even EXCESSIVE patience with the way I have been treated in here... but in here, I am tole to "be patient" even after all that. In fact, I have basically given up as well, at this point, yet I am still typing here in my talk page, because I'm trying to get the message across that there is ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT! DonaldKronos (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you get a message, a bright orange box saying "you have new messages" appears at the top right-hand side of the page, near the watchlist and logout buttons. Because you have been responding to some messages, you clearly knew that. Multiple editors explained that the material you added had nothing to do with the rest of the article, and that the intro is supposed to summarize the article. You just appear to have refused to read anything that doesn't give you your way.

That you reacted to the first reversion by calling it vandalism, and have been using all-caps in almost every post since does not look like patience at all. You keep saying you're giving up, or have given up, and yet you keep posting here.

People have explained what you need to do to get along here, to use the article's talk page after being reverted, to not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, and to assume good faith from others. You haven't been told "listen to others because they know more about how this site works than you do," but if you need to be told that, one has to wonder how that sort of attitude could possibly be useful.

The correct way to have done what you've tried would have looked like this:

1) Attempt your edit, see it get reverted

2) Go to the article's talk page, explain the reasoning for your edit, and ask why the edit was reverted while assuming that it was reverted for a good reason

3) When someone says "the intro summarizes the rest of the article, the rest of the article only discusses biological evolution," pay attention instead of accusing them of vandalism

4) Reply (without using ALL-CAPS) to try and find there's any consensus to expand the evolution article, being open to options that go "their" way instead of "yours" (because emotionally stable and rational editors do not think in terms of "me vs them," but "us and only us")

5a) If your proposals are accepted, fine, work on the material. If someone modifies the material you add, try to look at it as a compliment. Added text means that our material (not "my" or "your" material, but "our") is expanded. If it is trimmed, it's to make it more succinct and to-the-point. If the phrasing is changed, it is to be clearer.

5b) If your proposals are not accepted, get over it and find something else to do.

You got to 1, and ran in pretty much the opposite direction on everything else. As usual, the blue links I've provided are to site guidelines and policies that expand upon and justify what I'm saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE someone let SqueakBox (and others trying to talk to me) know that I can ONLY respond in here

I have NO IDEA how I am being addressed on other pages. I have BEGGED for information on how to do that, but it seems to be some big secret. Anyway, I continue to get such messages, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to reply to them, because IN HERE is the only place I am allowed to edit... and I wonder how long until that is removed as well.

Yes, the Evolution (disambiguation) page should be updated, and a link placed at the very top of it, ABOVE the like to the page about biological evolution to a page about the process of evolution which of course INCLUDES BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as a subset! On such a page, short introductions could be made to evolution in various categories and fields of studies, with links to their full articles (or suggested locations to place the full articles, where none exists). Feel free to copy (with or without credit... I don't care) the stuff I had written in an attempt to add something to Wikipedia about evolution in general, or for that matter anything I have written about it anywhere else that you can find it. In my opinion, it is an attack against humanity to hide from the public the fact that evolution happens all around us, and I still consider having the Evolution page be about only biological evolution while the biological evolution page redirects to the Evolution page, to be just that... HIDING THE TRUTH! This is how religions convince people to do terrible things for them... by hiding the truth in order to keep them convinced that theirs is not another variation in an evolutionary process, but something perfect and directly created by perfection! Well... of course many people who spread such lies are not making them up, but simply reproducing them, but DO WE HAVE TO SUPPORT SUCH DECEPTION HERE? DonaldKronos (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia has excellent help pages and you should be able to find answers to questions if you click on "Help" under "Interaction" in the side bar and search for what you need. Second, here on your own talk page is an appropriate place to discuss process. As you have gathered, for any Talk page new discussion should be placed at the end, entries on talk pages should be signed with four tildes "TheProfessor (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)", and indentation using ":" before text. Editors such as myself may join in a conversation if they choose, and be assured that they know where. Most of us can only devote limited time; others may be reluctant to invest time when it appears that communication may not be effective; and you may not get a response right away. Look at other discussion pages to see how they are organized, and to see which discussions appear to be fruitful (and you can open the editor without making changes to see formatting, like indents, though tildes will be converted to name/time labels. My suggestion: take a break, drop the attitude (comments about "hiding the truth" and "religions convince people to do terrible things for them" don't serve in a civil conversation), organize your thoughts, and edit your discussion to be clear and concise (frankly I can't sift through most of what you wrote since I posted my comment). Maintain a thread, which means staying on topic; for example on your Talk page a topic "How can I communicate?" could be under its own heading with one thread; while a discussion of how to move forward with an article might be in another thread under the heading "Evolution (term)". I suggest that your concern has already been partly addressed in the current version of Evolution (disambiguation) (Evolution is the primary topic, and [[Evolution (term)] is an appropriate additional topic. Yes, I understand you view that what you refer to as "evolutionary process" as a broader subject, and I agree that treatment a broader view of the term could be valuable (probably not with the name "evolutionary process" which typically also refers to biological evolution). I suggest that the best place is in the article called Evolution (term). When you are unblocked, you could propose some text in Talk:Evolution (term), though I caution you to stay on topic and be civil. Yes, I know talented people who who chose not to contribute to Wikipedia because they never understand the process or become frustrated. For me it was a big adjustment to learn to Edit for Wikipedia, because I was trained in writing original research in an academic setting. The difference is that this is an Encyclopedia in a group setting, a very different process. Nwo I find editing can be rewarding and productive. Best wishes, whether you choose to continue with Wikipedia editing or not. TheProfessor (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've spent many hours reading Wikipedia's help pages... most of that for the purpose of my something that turned out not to be allowed. I did not know where nor how to ask for help, and I have gone long periods of time without editing anything in here due to feeling like I am not welcome and my work has no value here... so it should not be surprising if most of what I had learned didn't stick, and probably a good portion of it doesn't apply anymore anyway. At least now people are talking to me, but apparently I had to get banned for that to happen. Ironic, really.... but still appreciated that I do not feel completely isolated other than the obvious deletions of my work. DonaldKronos (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that there has been excellent improvement of the Evolution (disambiguation) article, spurred in part by your input. TheProfessor (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's good news (did I reply correctly just now?) and I think you for pointing it out. However, that page and the Evolution page both still start out with blatant lies. Evolution is not the change in traits of biological organisms over time due to natural selection and other mechanisms nor is it the change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations as those are both strictly biological evolution and neither applies to evolution in general. For example, this page is evolving, even though it has no biological population. Regardless, if you would be so kind, please pass along my thanks, as I am unable to do so. DonaldKronos (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes DonaldKronos, you responded correctly. It is also good to keep the signature in line with the comment (use ":"s and preview to check or include it). I took the liberty of moving your signature into the same block paragraph (tidying up is generally ok, but me changing your comments is generally not). Calling the start of the Evolution and Evolution (disambiguation) pages "blatant lies" is not appropriate. How about more civil language, something like "I still am concerned that the pages do not start with a broader view of of the term 'evolution'." Also, the Bolding here is probably excessive (not quite as "loud" as all caps, but still could be interpreted as aggressive), so I would suggest simple quotes. To this, I respond (whether I agree or not) that the article Evolution and the beginning of the Evolution (disambiguation) article concern the "primary topic" (if there is one; which there is; and in this case it is Biological evolution, which has particular technical definition). I appreciate that you are trying to be true to the original broader term "Evolution", and while that is also a valid topic, it needs to be covered elsewhere (Evolution (term) could be a good place because you can talk there about the etymology and evolving history of the term). We just have to live with it (and it does make sense). The trick is not to let this feel personal (it is not) nor "wrong" (this is "right" by definition, in that this is the valid and consistent system adopted for editing). For example, see the disambiguation pages (dabs) for Kalani (disambiguation), where there is no consensus on a primary topic, vs Harbin (disambiguation), where there is a clear primary topic (a large city in China, as compared with an aircraft manufacturer, a clinic, a hotspring, etc). The case for the primary topic for Evolution is really the same principle. I hope that is clear. Wishing you well. TheProfessor (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheProfessor: Thanks. I think I may have missed this when you wrote it... until after I had got something from Kikichugirl also... but I do appreciate it. Did I do the signiture thing right this time? (Really, there should be an easier way to communicate in here.) DonaldKronos (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response DonaldKronos. Yes, you did better with use of formatting and the signature. And yes, you responded clearly and civilly to me. Little refinements: 1) Typically indent one more level when responding (note I added another level of indentation with ":" to your response, and yet another to mine; 2) When writing a single paragraph the signature can go at the end of the paragraph (I changed your signature about to be part of the paragraph and am including my signature at the end of this paragraph); with multiple . Remember tilde signatures are used in Talk pages, but not to articles. 3) I just include an editor's username in the text, like I did here, should alert the person (look at this in editing mode to the format (a link to the User page). I don't usually use the Reply to template, but there are various ways to do things. 4) Keeping discussion concise, organized, and uncluttered makes it easier to see edits. Note that I am choosing to follow the thread here, rather than writing at the end, where there would be confusion. 5) Generally I use a Watch page click on "hist" or "dif" to see the changes. Alternatively I click on the "history" tab. In history I can see the list of changes and then use the tools to highlight changes. Again, I emphasize the importance of working well with others, and especially be civil and try to understand what they say, ideally reserving opinion until you have taken time to understand and reflect. I can only be on Wikipedia a limited amount and am not available for further extended discussion with you nor mentoring. I wish you well. TheProfessor (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood, User:TheProfessor, and thanks again.DonaldKronos (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I tried to explain this once before. At wikipedia, we prefer technical definitions of words. Evolution, colloquially speaking, can and does refer to any change. However, the technical meaning of the word, vis a vis the theory of evolution, IS biological evolution and nothing else. Let me go in a different direction and point you at the policy on article naming conventions here. (unfortunately, I don't know the quick link. Hopefully someone else sees this and does) See, it was decided that this article should be about biological evolution and THEN, based on that AND the naming conventions, it was decided that this article should simply be called "evolution". The most relevant article naming convention that I can think of is WP:COMMONNAME. It simply means that, with a few exceptions, the most commonly used term to refer to a thing should be the name of the article. The most commonly used term to refer to biological evolution IS just "evolution". Except of course in creationist/ID advocate circles, but we both know they have no idea what they're talking about and just like to hear themselves speak.Farsight001 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bu that's not true. It is implied in the field of biology to mean biological evolution, just as it is implied in many other fields to mean evolution within the context of whatever field it may be. Evolution is no more a technical name for biological evolution than it is for evolution in any other context. It's a broad term. In my doctorate studies I had to deal with evolution of MANY KINDS, and NONE OF THEM were biological... and I am certainly not alone in this. The statement that "evolution in its broadest sense, is the accumulation of change" is not only true, but accommodating of ignorance besides. I had worded it that way due to the biological evolution context, and an understanding that many people have never heard the word used in any other context. It is also true to state plainly that "evolution in simply the accumulation of change", but I had not worded it that way, because of the importance of biological evolution and its relation to the contents of the page. However, the page is NAMED "evolution" and starts out with a blatantly FALSE claim that: "Evolution is the change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations". That is SIMPLY NOT TRUE! As I type this reply, the TEXT is evolving... and it is NOT biological, in any reasonable sense.

DonaldKronos (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Donald, you're encountering a basic problem here, and are by no means the first specialist to do so: our articles are not meant to satisfy the specialist, but rather to inform the layperson. While you are technically correct, it was decided here long ago that when the typical reader comes to Wikipedia with a question about "evolution", the odds are extremely high that they will be looking for information on biological evolution. Therefore, in accordance with our standard procedure, we decided under the policy shortcutted as WP:COMMONNAME to make the article under Evolution as good as possible, rather than spend our energy educating the seeker of information about the myraid varieties of evolution. (And I will repeat, do not gratuitously use all-caps to emphasize; by a convention as old as the Internet itelf, that is considered "shouting" and is discourteous. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

And I would have said the same thing... which is why I had worded it the way I did. If you haven;t read my wording, please consider doing so. It's still in the history. I'll not say more than that about it at this time, for what I'm guessing are obvious reasons... but I do thank you for your polite explanation, and I hope that one way or another my efforts will prove beneficial in the long run. DonaldKronos (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your off-site recruiting

Your post (which is very easily interpreted as off-site recruitment) has been reported to the administrators, along with other issues. If you wish to respond to any of the proceedings, you can post them here and one of the individuals watching this page (likely anyone who comments on the admin's noticeboard thread) will relay the information. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable, to ask that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE help me to contact the people here who have been asking me to HELP THEM! Am I mistaken? Again, I STILL DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY REPLY TO SOMEONE IN HERE (meaning, in Wikipedia, in general, but also here in my talk page), AND NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I ASK, NOBODY TELLS ME! Obviously, there must be a way, because I have received replies.... BUT I HAVE NO WAY TO RESPOND TO THEM!  :( DonaldKronos (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You can reply to someone using the {{ping}} template, which notifies them and produces this "@DonaldKronos:". If you're interested in pinging User:SqueakBox, I have pinged them for you. This is just one of the ways to reply to someone, though; I usually hit enter, type a semicolon, and begin my message, just as I've done here. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a colon, not a semicolon, but thanks regardless. I have done like I did here, before, and asked if it was a correct way to reply, but never got a response. Did I do it right? Still not sure if I understand about the ping template.... but that is the first I have heard of such a method, and I do thank you for mentioning it. Perhaps I can look it up if I can find the time and figure out where that information might be hiding. :) You know... if ANYONE would have done me that simple courtesy YEARS AGO, it would have made things so much easier and less frustrating for me in here... and I would have contributed more, and I'm sure gotten less of my hard work deleted. By this point though, I am so put-off by the whole thing, if they ban me permanently I will consider it wrong of them, but no loss to me.... except for the lack of my being able to thank kind people like you. Thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone wants to add this to the complaint against me supposedly off-site recruiting https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DonaldKronos/posts/4RWPT5N5YpP ... feel free. I've got nothing to hide. I am TRYING to help things get better here, and if that is not wanted, then they can block me for my efforts and fail to benefit from them.

DonaldKronos (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to Ping for my first time ever

@TheProfessor: I see you got accused of "carrying out" my "agenda". Sorry about that. I posted in Google Plus in the hopes that someone in there could help me figure out how to communicate in here, or perhaps do it for me... since people were asking for my help, and I had no way of even telling them that I could not. This whole thing is so frustrating, I have had a throbbing headache since it started... and I don't expect it to go away soon. I appreciate any efforts to make things better in here, but there really does seem to be a conspiracy among some group of people to keep the subject of evolution as obscure and as hidden as possible. I'm not naming names... but I'm mentioning that it LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME... because I think it needs to be seriously investigated. DonaldKronos (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper talk page usage

Calm down. You are currently blocked. The only usage of this page should be to request an unblock or to discuss your conduct in that context. Anything else and I will immediately re-block you and disable access to this page. You will either act appropriate here or you will be blocked and left to your devices. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, if the only way I can even respond to you is to request being unblocked, consider this an unblock request. If it's denied, go ahead and censor me completely, as you have basically just done with that statement anyway... aside from the allowance to at least request an unblock... so I'm requesting. Thanks for your consideration of my request.

Add the text as requested above and provide an explanation concerning what you did and why you should be unblocked. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. Your conduct so far has not helped your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

:( Like this?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DonaldKronos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So that I can respond to thank people, to discuss things in my talk page without being told I'm not supposed to, and perhaps to help with some of the things I have been ASKED to help with... at least in an advisory capacity. I have no desire at this point to spend more hours working hard only to have my work deleted, but I can perhaps still make suggestions through talk pages. I was apparently blocked for reverting a page three times, which I did not realize is not allowed, and had done because the deletions appeared to be vandalism of hard work (mine, specifically). From what I have seen going on since I have been blocked, it would appear that some of it was vandalism, and some was probably done with good intentions, but really should hard work not have SOME preference over the simple act of deletion? Even now, both the Evolution page, and the Evolution (disambiguation) page start out by claiming blatantly that evolution is strictly biological, although at least a MENTION is now made on the disambiguation page that the term is "sometimes" used in other contexts, but in fact even that wording is misleading, as it is like saying that the term automobile is "sometimes" used to describe things other than a Ford Pinto... and if anyone looks to Wikipedia to find what "evolution" is, they are met with "Evolution is the change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations." Which is also misleading, due to the fact that the page is named evolution and that is a statement about what biological evolution is. I think this should be investigated, but again... I just want to not be censored. If I am to be censored, then please complete the process.... but I would PREFER to be unblocked than to be totally censored. Thanks for your consideration DonaldKronos (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not seem to express that you understand the reasoning for your block nor do you assure us that you will not edit war going forward. By labeling the edits of theo ther side as "vandalism," you are showing that you cannot currently be trusted to participate in the collaborative process of building an article, therefore the block should remain. only (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If I did it wrong, please let me know, and I will edit it... if allowed to do so. DonaldKronos (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The format was correct. I can't say anything as to User:Only's response but as to whether you were asked to work on something or not, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Expert editors and probably more appropriately Wikipedia:Randy in Boise so you understand (humorously) how you should expect to be frustrated at times here. You need to treat all editors with the same level of respect and respect their versions as well. The term "vandalism" should be reserved for actual clearly obvious disruption not merely those you disagree with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I would consider that a given, but they did not EDIT my work, leaving their difference of opinion open to review by the community. They DELETED it... making it look as if there was nothing to review. That's not expressing a difference of opinion. Does that make any sense at all to you? As for reading more stuff, I appreciate the suggestion, but I have already lost WAY TOO MUCH TIME over all of this nonsense, that should have been settled in the discussion page by the community, treating me like a human being. If the level of respect ALL contributors are to expect is that low, I am surprised anyone bothers at all. No wonder I know so many people who gave up and swore off trying in here.... but I am a die-hard, so I'm willing to at least, as I said, continue in an advisory capacity... if that is allowed. If not, then that's that. Anyway, thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Donald. I see that you're having some trouble acclimating to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if you're unwilling to read our policies, guidelines, and help pages, you probably will not last very long here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is not a anarchistic experiment. We do have rules, and you should at least skim the simplified version. The fact that we dump users into a completely foreign sandbox with no explanation is a problem that I would like to see addressed, but we are community that prizes individual self-empowerment. That means that you're often expected to do the requisite research yourself, whether it's writing an article or researching our arcane and bureaucratic rules. However, you can find very helpful people at the Teahouse and the help desk.

Per our editing policy, we do attempt to preserve the work of contributors. However, this does not guarantee the inclusion of any specific edit; other editors are free to modify or reject edits as they see fit. We use consensus to settle content disputes, and, as you have seen, we block editors who engage in edit warring. As described in this essay, if someone rejects your edit, you should discuss the edit on the article's talk page and attempt to gain consensus. The last thing you should do is call their actions vandalism, which has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. If you do not wish to work collaboratively with others, perhaps you'd be better suited to writing a blog. I realize that you probably feel that everyone else is refusing to collaborate with you, but dispute resolution on Wikipedia is often strongly biased toward the status quo. This means that sometimes you need to accept consensus and walk away from a conflict where you believe everyone else is obviously wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your explanation. It's not that I am unwilling, but past attempts have left me less and less anxious to go through it all again... to the point where I am actually feeling like a message that I have been permanently banned would be more of a relief than a disappointment. Don't get me wrong. I would still like to help... but only because I recognize the potential value of Wikipedia to humanity and I care about humanity. It's doing NOTHING for me. Anyway, I will have a look at that page you recommended. Again, thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing controversial areas of wikipedia (the articles where disputes tend to arise) is tricky and needs lots of experience and knowledge about how things work here in order to do so effectively. And a highly controversial article like Evolution is probably not a good one for any new editor to cut their teeth on. Personally I edit wikipedia partly because it does a huge amount for me (as a knowledgeable encyclopedia which I love reading) and also because I enjoy editing here. Hope you are having a Merry Christmas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SqueakBox. Yes, I didn't expect any major change would go uncontested, but the main purpose of Wikipedia was in my opinion being defeated by the deception that I saw, and I didn't know how to ask anyone else to address it... nor did I wish to pass along the burden, which I have inadvertently done anyway. I have been observing a bit of what's gone on, and I do commend your efforts, plus I am thankful to be learning by seeing how you handle things. Both the Evolution page and its disambiguation page still start out with blatant lies, but I did notice that at least efforts were made to correct that, I'm sure over time both pages will continue to evolve.... plus, much improvement has been made. Thank you ... and thanks also to all the other people who have worked with you. I am only observing right now... but I do see some good in this community, and that's really a nice thing, in my opinion. DonaldKronos (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I was just passing by and saw that you were having a bit of trouble, so I thought I could help by giving some friendly advice. First, editing Wikipedia is not easy. It requires a lot of work, a lot of patience, and a lot of practice. This is a community, and it will serve you well to be very diplomatic with the people to whom you talk. Although most don't respond, many people are watching, and gathering support requires a person to show good faith and character, or else others will simply not want to collaborate with you.

Everyone here is correct. My advice is to avoid all-caps at all cost. No one likes to be screamed at, so you will do much better to lower the volume. More information can be found at User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer about the use of all-caps, and better ways to get your message across.

My personal advice is to take some time and learn about Wikipedia before moving on to stuff that is really important to you. The evolution article isn't going anywhere, so there is plenty of time to learn the process and get it done the right way. I would suggest leaving this topic for a while and working on a subject that is not very important to you. That way you can avoid any intrinsic bias that you may have and it won't be so upsetting if you get reverted, and you can learn the process without getting your feelings hurt. Then, once you've learned how things are done around here, you can go back to the evolution article and youll find that you won't have so much difficulty handling things. Keep in mind that continued edit-warring can eventually result in a topic-ban (not being allowed to edit any articles about the subject) and you may have to compromise with people.

When I first got here, I started out on an extremely controversial article, which provided me with an eye-opening experience. Fortunately, I didn't much care about the subject, and spent all of my time on the talk page, learning how to communicate effectively here. I've been here six years, have never been blocked, and have rarely had any of my edits reverted. It didn't come easily, though, and took a lot of research and practice.

I wish you all the best, and hope you have a Merry Christmas holiday. Things are constantly changing around here, so take some time and Im sure you'll see that one person can have a lot of influence on the direction of those changes. Zaereth (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Zaereth. Yeah, I should have handled it better, but past bad experiences in Wikipedia have added up to me lacking patience with having my work deleted in here... so I snapped. Oops. Anyway, for the moment I'm just watching the evolution page about biological evolution and it's corresponding disambiguation page evolve, and learning to accept the slow process with more patience. As long as the pages (non-biological as they are) continue evolving, I think it will be pretty hard for people in the community to make a case that the term "evolution" outside of biology is just some colloquial use of the word. Especially since it is so easy to find reference material verifying that an understanding of evolution is beneficial to pretty much any field of science or study one can think of. The community is doing well... and the edits I had made are still there for reference if anyone chooses to consult them, but I think they will do fine regardless. I'm not so anxious to do any editing in here for a while... or maybe ever... but time will tell. Again, thanks.

Yes, I recognize your name. I understand what you're saying. It's difficult to see a sign that says "anyone can contribute," but then to have all of your effort deleted. There is something called a "sandbox." which is basically your own user-space, which you can use to write articles, work on them for as long as you like, and no one will delete them. Once you feel they are ready, you can ask for people to review them and see if there is community acceptance, make tweaks as needed and so forth. Try it out. However, you have to get that community acceptance before the changes can go "live" into the article.

You can propose such changes on the talk page of an article. If no one responds within a month, you can generally see that as a green-light from the community. But try not to get too hung-up on semantics. I love the study of evolution, and especially the evolution of language. It just fascinates me to think that, at one time, all humans spoke the same, rudimentary language. From this one language, all other languages evolved. John Cohane wrote an interesting book about it, where he makes some very compelling arguments.

The thing to understand is that an encyclopedia is about things, not words. Dictionaries are about words, but language is constantly changing. Within the span of a hundred years a word can change its meaning four or five times. (Talk about evolution!) However, the thing always remains the same. Therefore, I wouldn't concern myself too much with the title of an article as I would with its content.

However, if you really feel that the evolution article should be made into a "parent article," which outlines all of the various forms of evolution, providing "main-article" links to articles about biological evolution, language evolution, technological evolution, etc., then I would suggest writing the parent article in your sandbox, discussing it on the evolution talk-page, and preparing yourself for a long, arduous journey. (In other words, I think it's possible, but may take some time and conscientious effort on your part. Zaereth (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

On an interesting side-note, "evolution" originally referred to the unrolling of a scroll. The geologist Charles Lyell is credited with using the term in its modern sense, but Charles Darwin disliked the term, using it only once. It was other scientists like Spencer, after Darwin, who helped to popularize the term as being mostly a biological process. Zaereth (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not even sure what the best solution is. Of course, words and languages are things too, but I do understand what you mean. Actually, the things sometimes change as well, but that's a separate issue. I'm not trying to nitpick definitions in here, although I think it it is important to keep in mind that it is the words which are directly looked up, since they are what we used to label the things they represent. The word "evolution" of course, as you know, has changed quite a bit over time, but the concept of evolution as presently represented by the word still retains that old concept of rolling out as its basis. The accumulation of change of course can be seen as a sort of progression rolling out newer versions or conditions based on older versions or conditions. I just think it is misleading to have the page found by looking up the word "evolution" start out right from the beginning be pigeonholing the concept of evolution into the narrow scope of its meaning within biology. However, I think I have made my case. For now, I'll just let it evolve. Thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

based on a cursory read of this talk page

Might I recommend:

• Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
• Rationalwiki (redirect). They luv taking and arguing about evolution. Here's their Category:Evolution and Category:Evolution essays. You can write what you wish and they'd debate it on the talk page.
• Just noticed. You have an account there and your history indicates edits on evolution.

199.7.156.136 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And thanks. I had a really bad experience on Wikipedia a long time back, where I put quite a bit of work into something, but the pages I had meant to reference ended up deleted before I was done, leaving me with only my own stuff which of course wouldn't have made much sense to reference when I was the one writing the page that would then have been referencing other stuff I had written... so I went about trying to find out what had happened to the pages, and found that they had been vandalized repeatedly and would not be restored... which left me waiting, hoping that I would eventually find another source. To make matters worse, I could not figure out the communication system in here, and I don't know if anyone answered any of my pleas for help in that area, but if they did... I did not manage to find their replies.

Needless to say, it left me feeling like I never wanted to edit anything in here again... so when I saw something I felt was important enough to take the risk, it was more than a bit off-putting to find that my efforts were deleted in much less time than it had taken to write and submit them, and worse yet I was basically told that due to some consensus reached by someone at some point in time, the evolution page was not allowed to talk about evolution (but rather about biological evolution) apparently even to explain that biological evoluion is a type of evolution and not what evolution is per se.

And the opening statement on the evolution page, ironically, was not allowed to evolve, in spite of being blatantly false. So yeah, it was frustrating, and being "told" things in a system where I had no clue how to "reply" to what I was being told, made me feel like a toddler being scolded for doing something I hadn't done, without even able to say anything in my own defense.

Fortunately, people have been much kinder to me since then, I'm sure in no small part due to the fact that some actually took the time to read what I had attempted to contribute rather than categorically condemning it, and also in no small part due to the fact that I am finally learning to communicate in here.... thanks to a few nice people who actually answered my plea for information on that subject.

So for now, I'm watching it evolve. I may try some minor edit at some point, or more likely suggest one to someone, but at this moment I'm just taking my time to recover from the trauma.

Again, thanks. DonaldKronos (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I just wanted to echo a bit of advice that another person gave earlier. Word choice can go a long way to setting the tone for a discussion. I think that you would get much further if you softened your language a bit. For example:

• "Is that what Wikipedia is for? To deceive the public?" → "I think the article is misleading, and it would serve our readers better to describe the general concept."
• "Bull SH*T!" → "I disagree."
• "What religion told you that silly lie?" → "The article seems to take a religious POV in that biological evolution is the only form of evolution."
• "I'm really SICK AND TIRED OF THE CENSORSHIP IN HERE!" → "We should engage in a productive, consensus-driven discussion rather than attempting to shut down debate."
• "...was not allowed to evolve, in spite of being blatantly false." → "...was not allowed to evolve, despite that I felt it was misleading to readers." Although, I don't think you even need the second clause. It doesn't really add anything to the sentence except to dig at your opponents and impugn their character.
• There is simply no way to soften "I'm not taking it personally. I'm taking it as an attack against humanity." I would suggest you avoid such over-the-top exaggeration (see also Godwin's law).

A trick that I learned a while ago was to write two drafts of messages when you're angry. In the first draft, you write as aggressively and confrontational as desired. Delete that without saving it. Now rewrite it in a more polite form. It actually does work, as it gets all the frustration out in your first draft. Right now, civility is a big issue on Wikipedia, and many long-time editors are finding their behavior scrutinized. As a newer editor, you don't have the benefit of these users' political capital, and it's likely that you will be indefinitely blocked if you can't interact with the community in a more civil manner. Civility can also go a long way toward tipping the community toward giving you a warning rather than a block. I don't know what your background is, but I suspect you may have experience debating in contentious areas of the Internet. Wikipedia has a totally different style of interpersonal communication. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate -- I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I do appreciate the suggestions and the feedback. In a way, I'm glad that I handled it as poorly as I did though, because in the past I tried to be more diplomatic and ended up feeling like there was just no way to hold a conversation in here. At least this way I learned... which in the long run is probably worth having made a fool of myself shaking things up a bit. I also did get some discussion going. I wish I could have accomplished that without causing any hurt feelings or resentment, but the fact is I simply did not know how to message anyone in here at all, and guessing at it was not getting the job done. I like the draft rant idea. Even if it was published, with a label that's what it was, it would be better than just giving up on effective communication altogether, which is basically what I had done.

As I understand it, there is a beta WYSIWYG editor, or something to that effect. I wonder if they will have options in it like "add reply" or "message user" to simplify communication. Would sure be nice for people who haven't yet learned the somewhat simple but totally unobvious tricks to such things.

As for the "attack against humanity" comment, I deal every day with people who are trying to shut down the teaching of science, and use the claim that there's no such thing as evolution as the backbone of almost all of their arguments. They present evolution in a twisted way which looks to many people like it matches what they can understand of biological evolution, and they are taking advantage of the complexity of biology to hide the fact that their versions of "evolution" is a straw-man argument. I had not meant to imply that anyone here is doing such a thing, but rather that such nonsense being used to attack our educational systems is supported by Wikipedia having an evolution page which fails to clearly point out that evolution applies just as much to simple things which accumulate change (such as text being edited, for example) as it does to the complex field of biology... because many people who don't know who's telling the truth and who's lying to them will look to Wikipedia for the answer, and right there at the top of the evolution page they are told that evolution applies (as opposed to biological evolution) has to do with inherited traits of biological populations. It's simply not a true statement, and although I do understand that it is meant in the context of biology and therefore can be taken to mean biological evolution, it is also on the evolution page, which people get when they search for evolution, and the disambiguation page is NOT in the context of biology yet makes a very similar claim, as the very first line, currently stating that "Evolution is the change in traits of biological organisms over time due to natural selection and other mechanisms."

Well, I know many people do only know evolution in such a context, and therefor probably think that statement actually accurate about evolution and not just about biological evolution, but at least we've gotten some discussions going now, and hopefully such limited understandings of the topic will evolve in time, and perhaps eventually it will be okay to modify such misleading statements about evolution without upsetting anyone. Not my place to do, at this point. I've said too much on the subject in here already. I'm just glad other people are talking about it, and trying to make it right.

Again... thanks.

DonaldKronos (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that funds Wikipedia, has put a strong emphasis on updating Wikipedia's user interface. This has not gone over well with veteran users who have become used to the current interface, but it is expected to make editing and interaction easier for new users. You can experiment with the beta features by enabling them in your preferences, and you can read a description of the new, experimental message system at Wikipedia:Flow. WikiProject Breakfast, a central discussion area for Wikipedia articles about breakfast, is a page that has been converted to Flow. I personally dislike the aesthetics and design choices made in these new features, but I agree that something needs to be done. As far as the content dispute goes, I try not to get too involved in them. However, I will say that you should be aware that some articles will be suffering from a siege mentality based on constant vandalism, trolling, and disruption. High profile, controversial topics such as abortion, gun control, and evolution will probably be the hardest hit. The best way to approach those topics is to distinguish yourself from the disruptive users, and civility is one way to do that. You'll still run into the occasional minefield, though. Editors also may be overly quick to revert when looking for people they suspect to be editing from a ideological point of view rather than a neutral point of view. Arguing with too much hostility may be interpreted as battleground behavior or advocacy for a cause. Wikipedians are especially skeptical of people who argue that they are here to "right great wrongs", as these are often highly disruptive users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty cool NinjaRobotPirate. I'll have to look that over more, and see if I can figure out how to find the settings to opt for that beta. I wouldn't worry much about the aesthetics, as that can be adjusted over time as the new system evolves. I think I already see some possibly useful feedback I could give, but I would like to get to know the system before I do that... so I don't waste anyone's time. Yes, I think I had a bit of that siege mentality going on myself at the time when I first tried to improve the evolution page, and it was reinforced by my inability to figure out how to held a conversation with anyone in here. I'm REALLY glad to see that they are working on improving the communication interface. Even though I'm finally starting to get the hang of it, I still recognize that it is bound to be holding things back in its present form. The way I see it, if you want to have a community built encyclopedia, supporting the community is much more important than the content, because the community can work to build and improve the content, but the content can't do much to build and improve the community, and even plain text can be later edited to become something more. DonaldKronos (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OP, different IP.

• Category:Evolution has articles on non-bio evolution
• Wikipedia:Let it go, Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World, First law of holes, and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars might give a sense of perspective.
• Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism
• Do your own page on your own wiki, or user-sub-page on RW, with content forked from the WP article.

199.119.232.214 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the category page lists sub-categories other than biological... which re-enforces my point. I'm okay just letting it evolve though. We've got good people in here who have been making adjustments as they see fit, and little by little both the evolution page and the Evolution (disambiguation) page are improving. DonaldKronos (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic ban for DonaldKronos. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Evolution. Do not use article talkpages as a cenotaph for your farewells, either. --Mr Fink (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had worded what I wrote quite appropriately, but obviously you disagree with me on that point. Thanks for at least explaining. If you can find some portion of it which you do feel was appropriate, please feel free to copy it with or without attributions and post such portion as you see fit. I was not trying to post a "fairwell", but rather trying to back gracefully out of something that I still feel strongly about for what I consider to be good reasons. So I'm asking, please.... look through what I wrote, and see if you you can find some scrap of it that you also see value in. DonaldKronos (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed your final missive from Talk:Evolution because it was totally inappropriate, as it ran afoul of WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPA--Mr Fink (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but again... noted, and I do thank you for explaining. DonaldKronos (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion seems to have been archived without being closed. If I were you, I'd avoid evolution-related topics for a while. The people who voted to topic ban you are, in my experience, reasonable people. Like one person in that thread suggested, it would probably be best if you get experience with editing Wikipedia, and then maybe think about coming back to controversial topics about which you feel passionate. Remember, these people are not your enemies. If you treat them as potential allies, it is much more likely that you will sway them to your point of view. I get as caught up in pointless arguments as anyone else, but Wikipedia has forced me to learn to walk away once in a while, even when I'm sure that I'm right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)