Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:25, 31 May 2008

(Erk apologies; twinkle misdirected to the wrong user page!) --Blowdart | 11:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm a newbie. Have no idea what you are on about?!

Ah, you would have seen a notification that your talk page changed; which was me adding something that didn't apply. I just didn't want you confused. Having said that your last rollback for Usury, which restored "The bible is an arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text, dealing primarily with religious themes and issues. It is not a textbook on modern banking, economic and lending systems." is certainly inflammatory, opinion and not encyclopaedic, hence I have removed it. --Blowdart | 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. I can't see anything remotely "inflammatroy" about it. It asserts, quite modest, self-evident points that even a professional theologian would be content with. I've inserted your "claim" claim --- although I have no idea how you can make such an completely, over-the-top, absolutist statement, utterly POV, and monumentally non-"encyclopaedic." Archilles last stand (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Usury. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What did my remarks, which you allege were the only issue; then have to do with you deleting the newly amended passage, which included 'Blowdarts' "claim" assertion?!?!?!?! (Archilles last stand (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

OK let's consider. You added commentary without citation and inappropriate commentary at that. The article does not claim that the bible, or indeed any of the religious texts quoted are textbooks on modern banking. Indeed given that the article includes historical references that commentary is a nonsense on those grounds alone. Then there's the matter of opinion, where you describe the bible as "arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text", yet for some reason leave the other religious texts alone and finally you state that the bible deals with religious themes and issues, which would is fine (but more appropriate for the Bible article); except that the section is within the "Usury within religious texts" section making the commentary redundant. Please don't vandalise wikipedia with your own personal agenda.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Usury. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

The vandal is you. Deleting important details relevant to later points. All you've stated above is pure POV. Since the section is headed New Testament, how is the general mention of "the bible" not relevant to the NT section which is the bible of Christianity!? WHAT, are you talking about?

In terms of sectarian, the very text itself speaks of numerous sects, schisms and infighting. Have you even bothered to read it to know what you are talking about? That is not a POV but in the text itself! You are making completely false assertion. I'm editing a specific section which I took the time to investigate. If you want to do the "other religions" as you say -- be my guest.

And what else is it other than "arcane text" a modern text" do you even know what the word means?

So what the freckles is really going on here; and why are you people screwing around with this pedantic rubbish? It's taken two, maybe three of you to ramble quaint and irrelevant pedantics, but not one of you has made a singular, practical, demonstrable effort to suggest "hey," this is how the passage ought to read and be should be put together!

Just cut the bullshit.(Archilles last stand (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

I fail to see how "The bible is an arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text, dealing primarily with religious themes and issues. It is not a textbook on modern banking, economic and lending systems" is actual research. Even if it were without citations it could be rolled back and removed. Opinions on the nature of the Bible are not suitable for a section which simply quotes from it and other religious texts. --Blowdart | 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Usury, you may be blocked from editing. --Blowdart | 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop harassing and threatening me you fascist ass. You are just mumbling unsubstantiated POV.

You have not refuted one point I made.

I do not know if you are a bunch of religious or ideological nutters, but sound like -- just get lost.

You not helpful. Have not been helpful as per Wiki help with new editors. You are vandalising my contributions repeatedly without a rational cause or reason.

If your stalking, threats, harassment and vandalism do not cease, it will be reported. (Archilles last stand (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Usury.

Your recent editing history at Usury 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. --Blowdart | 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that you began the reverts and vandalism this means you up for blocking first.

So:-

(a) How do I block you?

(b) Who do I report your obsessive harassment, threats and vandalisimng my edits to (over some stupid fables)?

(c) Once you provide the above data; that will be the first constructive thing you will have accomplished thus far. (Archilles last stand (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

If you consider the reverts vandalism then you should put warning templates after each occasion on my talk page. If after the final warning it continues then you can report the behaviour on Administrator intervention against vandalism. You can report perceived 3RR violations on the 3RR Noticeboard. And finally if you want to report harassment and "threats" then the Incidents notice board is probably your best bet. --Blowdart | 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the above cover (a)?

Where are the templates?

Too late to do any more. I'm buggered. Yawn! (Archilles last stand (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

Original research and opinionating on Usury page

Hi there. I would like to discuss this edit, in which you have been involved in an edit war.

Let me state first and foremost that I agree with your opinion here. Actually, I couldn't agree more, and you summed up my feelings on the matter rather succinctly. (If you don't believe me, check my user page for my opinion on this issue)

However, it is just that: opinion. As this is a highly controversial statement, and one which many people would find inflammatory, it needs very good secondary sources to back up the assertion. I feel that you have engaged in a bit of original research here, in that you are characterizing the Bible based upon your own interpretation, one which many people would disagree with. Also, I am not sure you are correct that nobody is using the Bible as guidance for how to make laws! Unfortunately, heh...

Anyway, while the kind of edit warring we see on that page is discouraged (please see WP:3RR), Blowdart is correct that the statement cannot be added to the article as it stands, at least not without high-quality sources to back it up (and even then, the comment seems somewhat out of place in the Usury article).

Please refrain from edit-warring, and if you really feel the article would benefit from something commenting on the Bible's usefulness as a legal text, please try to find some secondary sources to back it up, preferably something that comments specifically on the Bible's relationship to usury.

Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, thanks for the welcoming comments. I had no idea a mere, seemingly insignificant paragraph, would cause certain people such stress! Quite amazing.

Let me just clarify an apparent misunderstanding you hold; I am not "advocating" the bible for anything personally.

It is a bunch of superstitions and ideas ancient people clung to before the rise of empiricism and the scientific method. My insertion had nothing to do with any "usefulness" as apparently you thought, or even advocacy?!

What I sought to do was objectify; giving as many perspectives as one might, in a short, prefatory passage; as my comments further on down, seek to clarify.

So, OK Jaysweet, as to other issues; no one really bothered to make any real and genuine sense of what they were doing. Just largely haphazardly deleting my contribution.

Blowhard was vandalisng my edit with barely a shred of fact or reason to it. Just spouting pedantic Wiki 'cut n paste' screeds and making threatening remarks about blocking.

At no point did he substantiate or prove what assertion or statement I had made was inaccurate.

He apparently also does not have a grasp of the English language; does not know what words like "arcane" or "sectarian" mean. I cannot be held accountable for someone else's illiteracy and ignorance.

I do not see how what I had written was pure POV? who disputes it's veracity? no one so far has even done so in any substantive or meaningful way! just dogmatically cried "POV" -- do we throw it in the well, and see if sinks or floats?

The points I made are asserted by mainstream Xtian pastors and theologians themselves.

A certain minor point that Blowhard disputed I amended, and inserted his very point into the passage, and he still went back and deleted it!

It seems he's on some sort of crusade? more interested in the edit war, making threats than constructively helping.

So explain precisely what is either "controversial" or "inflammatory?" not your POV, but objectively.

I agree that after refelection, the passge, althouigh intended to preface the entire section, probably does not connect or read well, as it stands, and can be improved.

I'd forgotten the exact reason for the original prefatory? But vaguely, it was to objectify the previous insertions which were leaning and indeed refelective; of ultra Right Wing political screeds.

They frequently use "USURY" to vilify Jews and other perceived modernist enemies and use the bible to support their extremist, anti-USURY politics and propaganda.

Google is your god, type USURY; if you have half a brain -- you get the picture instantly.

Obviously Blowhard is extremely ignorant; or maybe politically and culturally introverted and naive, to have made the ill-informed assertion that "no one claims" to use the bible as a financial, economic text, relevant to modern banking and finance. To the ultra Right one could also add Christian theocon Reconstructionists, theocrats or theonomic thinkers and adherents, who assert the bible is a law-life-text book, to be used as the basis in every modern sphere of life; social, political and economic.

I suggest Blowhard and his eager vandalizers, actually do some research; and move beyond their obviously clueless state.

So? (a) does any of the above make sense? (b) where do we go from here? (c) given that there is abundant evidence that many individuals and diverse groups do claim and use the bible as an economic textbook, relevent to modern finace and banking, I believe the prefatory remarks are objectively relevent if, for the moment not precisely constructed in a more readable and circumspect manner.

So give me some clues how to tidy-it up and make it more NPOV? (Archilles last stand (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Also please tone down your remarks and edit summaries. There's no need to be so confrontational.-Wafulz (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz, STFU. I'll be decent to decent people. Not to willfully ignorant, pedantic pixel pushers, or stalking, vandalizing and threat-making morons. Have a wank elsewhere; get lost. (Archilles last stand (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC))