Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:39, 19 September 2011

Hello, Wikiglobaleditor, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! ~~~~

• Introduction
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Misplaced Pages

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Misplaced Pages etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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

Request reason:

I did NOT done any edit warring, I was putting some data on the page based on some official documentaries made by notable historians and scholars – and endorsed by government and notable institutions. But a particular user User:History2007 constantly reverting my edits and posting threatening messages in my talk pages. I just wanted to protect my updates on that page and I tell him repeatedly not to continuously revert my changes as a topic regarding this already created in the discussion page, so that users can discuss there until a consensus is being made. But he was reluctant to hear. If my edits are disputed, then Misplaced Pages has a clear policy on disputed facts : to present arguments from the BOTH sides - That's what I am doing. Misplaced Pages is not about holding some religious belief – it’s all about scientific and historical facts and findings, and presenting the truth in front of the world community – which it is created for. If the documentaries made by Government of India or News media like BBC is NOT reliable - then what could be RELIABLE according to your discretion? Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and truth can't be suppressed by numbers. I just wanted to voluntarily contribute to Misplaced Pages by updating a page based on the latest researches of the renowned historians & scholars from different parts of the world - and if that leads to blocking - then I am sorry to say, Misplaced Pages will fail to be a reliable source itself very soon - and knowledgable people will keep distance from editing Wikis. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were obviously edit warring in the Jesus article. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2011 (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.

Thanks for your note

Hello W. Thanks for your thanks. It is no problem at all - there are so many guidelines and regulations around here. I've been editing over 6 years and there are still things that I am learning. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three experienced editors are disagreeing that the information you wish to add is reliably sourced. Reverting half a dozen times, accusing them of bias, reporting them for vandalism and trying to get the page locked to your version is not the way to deal with this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the documentaries made by Government of India or News media like BBC is NOT reliable - then what is RELIABLE according to your prudent discretion ?? Misplaced Pages is not about holding some religious belief – it’s all about scientific and historical facts and findings, and presenting the truth in front of the world community – which it is created for. For disputed facts you can present the arguments of the both sides, but you CANNOT forcibly suppress the other point of view and delete data. But this is exactly what this "experienced" users were doing. They are not even willing to see the references I have given. I told them repeatedly not to continuously revert my changes as a topic regarding this already created in the discussion page, so that users can discuss there until a consensus is being made. But they were reluctant to hear. If my edits are disputed, then Misplaced Pages has a clear policy on disputed facts : to present arguments from the BOTH sides - That's what I am doing.

Misplaced Pages is not a Democracy, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and truth can't be suppressed by numbers. I just wanted to voluntarily contribute to Misplaced Pages by updating a page based on the latest researches of the renowned historians & scholars from different parts of the world - and if that leads to blocking - then I am sorry to say, Misplaced Pages will fail to be a reliable source itself very soon - and knowledgable people will keep distance from editing Wikis. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You can find out what we consider reliable sources by reading our policy: WP:RS. Whether a source is produced by a government is not one of the criteria for reliability. The scientific fact and findings you are talking about ar not generally presented in television, which is a medium of entertainment, not of scholarship. Furthermore, since wikipedia is not a democracy, we have rules and policies regulating exactly the ways in which information can be added to articles - it requires discussion and arguments - not editwarring. You have not complied with those policies - rather you forcibly attempted to insert text into an article, without concern for the arguments of the editors telling you that it was not up to our standards. If you wish to edit here you must read, understand and follow our policies. That is the only way a collaborative encyclopedia can work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Government of India was not established, nor is it qualified, to judge the history of early Christianity, 1st century Judea or Galilee, or Jesus. Ditto for the BBC. You ask what is a reliable source on a scholarly topic? Simple answer: books by established scholars (e.g. at established major research universities) recently published by major university presses (Chicago, California, Duke, Cambridge, etc) or articles published by similar PhDs in well-established peer-reviewed journal articles. Just go to a library and read. When you have read enough you will know something. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, your edits, while referenced, are not in line with the mainstream views, and as such qualify as a fringe view. Such views, when they do warrant any mention at all, warrant only separate articles with nothing but a "see also" mention in the main article. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I first heard the Kashmir theory 30 years ago from my landlord who was an Amadiyah from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, when I was a student. One of his daughters had beautiful curly red hair, and he told me it was a sign that he had Jesus or one of the disciples as an ancestor. One could write a perfectly respectable article on it as a well known fringe theory, with the added interest that there are probably academic sources from the Indian subcontinent that examine it as a folk belief.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant understand why you all are failed to judge this fact as a neutral point of view! WP:FRINGE clearly mentions that "... for writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." How can you say the work of all scholars is NOT reliable because they are from India. Documentaries are not the source of the data I inserted, they refer to the hundreds of old manuscript, inscription, archaeological proofs, and books written by scholars not from India - but mainly from western countries. How can you ignore all of them and insult their researches and forcibly stick to a rigid point based on your prejudice - simply because this article is about a person - with whom a religious belief is associated. Does Misplaced Pages give you the authority to do so? How can you make Misplaced Pages - which is supposed to be world's first digital heritage - a static source of data on some particular article - only because it is sensitive. Before making comments here none of you gone though the documentaries - I am sure, because it takes atleast 1 hour to watch these information and cross-check the references mentioned there - but my edits were reverted and I was blocked within few minutes. I simply restated in the main article the latest researches and finding from some independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality, to present the controversial ideas in a neutral manner according to the WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. If you were not agree - you could raise a debate in the talk page, or you could move the details in some different sections, you could have enhance the claim by citing the works and findings mentioned in those lengthy documentaries - but you simply deleted the whole data I inserted not only once - but several times. No action was taken against those who indiscriminately and repeatedly reverted the same data again and again all within a while - but surprisingly I was blocked!! You should know one thing - no matter how much you misuse your Wiki-admin power, you can never change the historical facts - being a wiki-admin or wiki-policy expert - will never make you a historian or scholar, truth shall always prevail, you can only make some delay to appear it in a particular page of a particular website! - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Write an article about it. The article Jesus is conveying the current mainstream view, which is primarily western. You are right about that. Write an article about this really very longstanding view held on the Indian subcontinent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus is the first ever known personality, who connected east with west with his prudence, his unparalleled charisma, and his message of "Love". He equally belongs to east & west. Any article on him should have both the eastern and western views, then only it may be called mainstream. I just wanted to reflect this through my edits, as it was my humble tribute to this great personality of ancient times, who did many things which others can't even imagine during those days. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and rightly or wrongly our primary focus is the mainstream view of the English speaking world, which does place it's emphasis in a particular way. There is an article to be written about the view of Jesus in India, and it doesn't have to be fringe in the way that spoon bending is fringe. he problem is that the mythos of the subcontinent has been taken up by authors in the west with their own axes to grind, and this is what makes it WP:FRINGEElen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by English speaking world? Do you think today English is limited to England or USA and Australia only? Do you have any idea of the importance of English in Indian subcontinent? English is the only connecting and common official language of that subcontinent? Do you have any idea of the number of the population of the Indian subcontinent who can speak/read/write in English? That number will be more than the double of the western "English speaking world" you are referring to. The question is whether you will show respect to the historical facts (irrespective of when it was discovered) or will you clinch to static religious facts - when a encyclopedic article is concerned? Ask yourself - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me make it blindingly obvious, as it's obviously not going in by collegial discussion. If you edit war to put that back in the article again, you will get blocked for a longer period. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I was treated and humiliated here - I am doubtful that in future whether I'll make any voluntary contribution to Misplaced Pages - unless I get apology from appropriate authority. As far as life of Jesus is concerned - I'll take it to the much broader international community including historians and scientists in a much broader forum. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned I will just make my voice heard in the Talk:Jesus page to those 'experienced' editors of English Misplaced Pages - as I am unable to do so due to this blocking and they unilaterally showing their 'knowledge' over their. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An apology for sanctioning you for breaking the rules seems unlikely. You are only blocked for 72 hours. After that time, you can discuss it on the talkpage, just don't edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiglobaleditor, you may have been humbled by having your edits reverted, but you were not humiliated - "humiliated" suggests that you take it personally. Working at Wikipedi is a humbling experience for all of us, and you should not take that personally. This being the encyclopedia anyone can edit means you can edit but it also means any of the thousands of editors can revert your edit. In fact, it is a virtual inevitability that any editor who has worked here for any length of time will have been reverted t some point - I have been reverted countless times and I have even been blocked a few times. So what?

I respectfully do not agree with Ellen if she meant that that "European" views (I personally find "Western" and "Eastern" to be meaningless in this generic sense) should dominate Misplaced Pages. When she clarified about English sources, she is being only pragmatic _ at English Misplaced Pages, editors will inevitably be people who can read and write English. This will include people from all over the world, since countries like Nigeria and India are part of the English speaking world. But none of this is relevant.

What is relevant is the fact that we provide accounts of mainstream scholarship (whether it come out of Pakistan or China or Germany or any other country). We only use reliable sources, and we do not use fringe views. You seem to be unaware of our most basic policies. There is a link to all of these at the Misplaced Pages main page. Surely you took the time to learn about Misplaced Pages before you tried to change one of its articles, right? Well, I assume the best and thus assume you did this. But just in case out of some kind of disrespect, you did not - I have added a welcome template at the top of this page with all the links to policies, guidelines and essays about working here successfully that we all assume any new editor has taken the time to read. Have you gone to WP:Five Pillars? Have you bothered to read our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR? Have you respected the comments many volunteer editors have provided you, directing you to look at our policies in fringe views and on reliable sources? Frankly, what you have written most recently suggests that you have not bothered to do this. Or, if you actually have read these policies, then you are willfully disregarding them. Either way shows a tremendous lack of respect for your fellow editors. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. We work only by working together. Since we are strangers to one another (I might live in the same town as you, or on the other side of the world, you do not know) we can collaborate only by working within the framework of these policies. If you edit without bothering to read them, or read them and ignore them, you insult all of us.

You seem to have personal views about Jesus. here is some friendly advice: do not edit articles relating to Jesus. It is a rule here that none of us put our own views into articles. This takes self-discipline many people need time to develop. One way to develop this is to work on articles that you have no personal interest in. If you have no personal interest, you are unlikely to violate this basic rule of Misplaced Pages, and you will gain valuable experience in how our policies apply and how to collaborate, and you will help build our encyclopedia. Isn't that what you want to do? Help write a great encyclopedia? Well, go to the article on Ferdowsi or Carbon or some article on a relatively neglected topic. Then, research the topic following our policies for research, and then contribute to the article following our policies for writing. Your work would be appreciated and you could be proud about having made real contributions.

But i can tell you right now that a You-Tube video is a no-starter. I watched the first part of that video by the way and I can tell you that any real scholar - whether in India, Pakistan, China, or the United States - could possibly take it seriously. Each sentence reveals a sloppy, unscholarly approach that any established scholar would be embarrassed to say or write. The video certainly is not aimed at professional scholars. Frankly, to use this as a source is an insult to scholarship. An insult to scholarship, period. An insult to scholarship in any country and in any language. For you to use it as a source is to insult us and to try to humiliate us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Again you are asserting your personal views on those researches which documented in those videos. Your "prejudicial" clearly evident by this statement that "You seem to have personal views about Jesus..." - watching those documentary gave you the feel - that those reflects my personal view!!! - this clearly reveals how you watched those references and your respect level for those researchers. I am gonna put my views in the Talk:Jesus page very soon, lets argue over there, My Talk page is not a good place for discussing on the the life of a person of the stature like Jesus - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bubbalah, I wrote five paragraphs and you opt to respond only the last one? If you respoect WIkipedia and if you really want to work here, it is the first four paragraphs - the bulk of my message - that you should care about. As for the fifth paragraph, I was expressing my views, but university-level researchers are a community with community-wide standards, so I was not expressing my personal point of view. Limiting ourselves just to say the first four sentences of the video, it is not my personal opinion that it is silly - I am saying that it violates all the standards that the scholarly community expects of scholarly work. I started watching with an entirely open mind (believe it or not) but it was the actual words that the narrator spoke that convinced me that this is a work not meant to be taken seriously by scholars. If you wish to know what works meant to be taken seriously by scholars look like, read any of the books by well-respected scholars and published by respected academic presses, or articles in peer-reviewed journals, cited by the current Jesus article.

I have expressed NO personal beliefs or opinions about Jesus. I told you that this is not what WP is for. I am WARNING you NOW: if you put your views about Jesus on the Jesus talk page or any WP space, you risk being blocked again. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article: to assess the significance of views and the reliability of scholars. It is NOT for you to use as a soap-box Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you show your exact true character and your real intention, that is to suppress facts and threatening others - when you are completely defeated through arguments. Listen, you have no right to twist Wiki-policies according to your own favor. Being a wiki-policy expert - will NEVER make you a historian or scholar, truth shall always prevail, and I am NOT afraid of being blocked by naive people, as I know it quite well how to raise the truth to the appropriate forum. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)