| Revision as of 09:24, 26 September 2014 edit182.249.204.174 (talk) →Re: Email contact with JoshuSasori: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:41, 1 April 2024 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,277 edits Reverted good faith edits by 47.184.30.187 (talk): Respect Cinteotl's wishesTags: Twinkle Blanking Undo | ||
| (151 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{yo|John Carter}} - Well, that ANI was a waste of everyone's time. You got me confused with someone else, then didn't even say what POV you thought I was pushing. Care to clue me in to what your problem with me is? ] (]) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you paid any attention to the comments directed at you on the article talk page you would know what many people have already said about your problematic conduct is and has been. Apparently you haven't read what others have said already although I will apologize for confusing one long-term editor with a red-linked and clearly laughably self-serving name for another. ] (]) 19:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|John Carter}} I'll ask again, and try to be clearer this time: What POV do YOU think I'm pushing? ] (]) 21:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have regularly and rather systemtically woefully misused the article talk page, often in a condescending manner, which, given your own disregard for or incompetence to understand basic ], comes across as ridiculously laughable. You have apparently made no effort to review any prior discussions, perhaps seemingly in what could be seen as further evidence of arrogant incompetence. You have made statements indicating that you have no awareness of the fact that the article is, as per the Jesus sidebar, one of the main subtopics of Jesus and more or less should summarize as per ] the various subarticles. In short, you give the impression of being a newbie with a profound ego but little real knowledge of the topic and less knowledge or awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please make an effort to read ] and try to realize that, despite your own obvious conviction of your personal genius, what others probably see is something which may not merit any sort of strongly positive description, and also that ] applies to those with questionably high opinions of themselves too. If you want to do something truly positive and not so perhaps self-serving, check to see if you have access to the recent ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historicity of Jesus,'' which I don't have ready access to, and, maybe, try to realize that, unless you are a professional in the field, however high your opinion of yourself might be, the authors there probably know more about the subject and are better sources for our content than yourself and your OR speculations regarding their possible bias.] (]) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{yo|John Carter}}I was going to ask yet again what POV you think I'm pushing, but it seems pretty futile at this time. | |||
| :::::Regarding the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus,'' (not the ''Historicity of Jesus,''): I've actually reviewed it, and found that, as I expected, it was a good source for historical Jesus research, but quite lacking in useful information on Historicity. (The two being distinct.) The authors there are pretty much the same ones already cited in the article. No big deal. | |||
| :::::If you actually want an authoritative reference on historicity, check out (Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n5 ), or (Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9 ). They're both fully cited, and quite thorough. ] (]) 22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Article talk pages == | |||
| I have removed your latest irrelevant comment at ] . Article talk pages are there to be used to improve the article as per ]. ''Please make some discernible attempt to abide by them.'' Thank you.] (]) 20:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the final warning you will receive regarding your recent regular misuse of article talk pages. As you have been specifically told already, they are intended to be used for developing the article not for comments which seem to serve no purpose beyond assuaging your ego. Please read the relevant ], and realize article talk pages exist for the purposes indicated, and that many of your recent comments cannot remotely be seen to serve those purposes. You have been advised of this ''repeatedly'' and have no real excuse for your recent egregious behavior. ] (]) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::We have talk page guidelines for a reason ''whether you are capable of understanding them or not''. If you can't understand that please read ].] (]) 23:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Just in case == | |||
| Fwiw, in case you decide to pursue arbitration as the next logical (and final) step, I pass along some lessons learned as the filing party ]. I previously shared these with {{u|Ret.Prof}} who found himself in a similar situation but was too reticent to file a case. As a result, he has been all but driven from the encyclopedia by repeated incidents of bullying. ] (]) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. The result was as you predicted. I took a lot time because I really wanted to work things out. Yet I must concur with your assessment. Arbitration is the only way forward. - ] (]) 03:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notice == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 14:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == September 2014 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (])(]) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Amortias}} If you review the talk page, You'll see that I've followed BRD, and have not crossed the ] line -- so AN3 was not appropriate. ] (]) 19:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Fearofrepisal, AN3 is also for edit warring, this does not require 3 reverts and this is the reason both parties were reported here. ] (])(]) 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Amortias}} ] also states: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." If you look at the talk page, you'll see that I consistently tried to resolve the disagreement through discussion on the Talk page. ] (]) 20:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Fearofrepisal. I fully agree that you have attempted to discuss the issue but to no avail, I have however fell into this trap before when dealing with disagreements with other editors. If there is no agreement or unwillingness to discuss it is preferable to revert an edit and if countered reporting it to the appropriate ] as vandalism by editing against consensus after being warned. You may have a fair defense under the exemptions for ] by reverting vandalism if they are editing against consensus. I would agree with your issues against the other editor in this case and it may be beneficial to your case if you have some input under the comments section at the ]. I had reported bot yourself and the other editor to make the case clear and open as I would have been unable to link the issues without implicating yourself as well. ] (])(]) 20:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at ] == | |||
| See ]. You seem to have reverted four times on September 4 at ]. There may still be time for you to undo your last revert, to avoid a block. Thank you, ] (]) 19:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|EdJohnston}} My first edit was not a revert. See discussion ('''before''' edit) at I followed ] in this matter. I'd rather have ] finish filling out the AN3, and have the discussion there. ] is an experienced revert warrior, and I'd like to see his actions brought into the light of day, even if I risk being blocked. ] (]) 20:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|EdJohnston}} FOR, you made the change when you had NO consensus on the Talk page. I stayed within the 3 revert rule and would have taken the case to the EW board next, but John Carter started a thread at AN/I, so I'm just waiting to see how that goes. Apparently, it's been transferred to the EW board as I write this. At any rate, you deleted sourced content. I then reverted because you had no consensus on the talk page and, in fact, you are simply pushing fringe theories. Therefore your first revert of my revert counts. ] (]) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Bill the Cat 7}} Let's not talk here, OK? if there is an ANI or AN3, those are the places to talk. ] (]) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Email contact with JoshuSasori == | |||
| Fearofreprisal, I would strongly advise against either engaging in off-wiki communication with banned users or continuing to read what ] tells you with any credulity. Not only is his understanding of history extremely flawed, but users who take him seriously have a nasty habit of getting blocked themselves. ] (]) 09:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC) | |||