Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 19 August 2013

Warning

This is shockingly bad advice. I don't know any of the context of this, and just found the page while looking at unblock requests. but advising someone to create sockpuppets to avoid a topic ban seems, on its surface, to be a really, really bad idea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What about not "on its surface"? Strangesad (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any time when advising someone else to break the rules that way would be a good idea. If you think that this person has been unfairly treated, the better thing to do would be making a strong case at WP:AN that the topic ban was unreasonable and should be lifted. It's never a good idea to goad someone into actions that would certainly lead to a permanent block for them. Even if yourgoal is that this person should be permanently blocked, it reflects badly on you to push them into it. A person who is not going to be a beneficial part of Misplaced Pages will eventually make that clear and be indefinitely blocked without any nudging. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you can't think of something that I can think of. We haven't found a common ground. I have no faith in ANI. Strangesad (talk)

I came here to comment on the same bit of extremely bad advice, and completely agree with FisherQueen in this matter. I urge you to return to Humanpublic's talk page and retract your comment. If your intention is to help another editor, urging them to violate policy is certainly not the sort of "help" they need. Regards ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes violating policies is what's right. Strangesad (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We all look alike

Have you seen my (soon to be rejected) arbitration request? They think all atheists think the same. We are all part of a vast hate-driven conspiracy to attack Christianity. Humanpublic (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. They've upped my hours at work, so I have less time for Misplaced Pages now. Strangesad (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Will you be at the Meetup this month? Humanpublic (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Echo the elephant has been nominated ...

Hi, thanks for writing the article about Echo. I've nominated it for Did you know. In case you're not familiar with it, DYK is a section on the Main Page which highlights new content. Every April Fools' Day, DYK is devoted to quirky hooks that look like April Fools' jokes, but which are actually true. This is a highly anticipated event every year, and editors and readers flock to it. Almost every article in an April Fools' Day set gets over 5,000 views, most get at least 6,000–7,000, and many get over 10,000 or much more. I apologize if you already know all of this, but I was here for many years before I ever discovered DYK and the wonderful April Fools' Day tradition.

I have nominated your article (Template:Did you know nominations/Echo (elephant)) with an April Fools' Day hook. When it appears on the Main Page, it is likely to generate thousands of views of your article, but you'll have to wait until April 1 for this to happen. If you'd prefer that your DYK appear sooner, we could substitute a traditional hook (the "jokey" ones are only allowed on April Fools' Day). These regular hooks, in general, tend to produce fewer page views.

So it's your decision: use the quirky hook for the April Fools' Day celebration, or substitute a "normal" hook for a quicker Main Page appearance.

In either case, thanks again for writing about this significant animal. And, this may be about five months late, but ... welcome to Misplaced Pages! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm honored that you nominated it. I like the hook. 360 days is a long time to wait, but "life's too short too rush. (I'm fed up with Misplaced Pages at the moment, so I might not be editing in a year.) Strangesad (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we'll go with the April Fools' Day hook. I hope that whatever has you "fed up with Misplaced Pages at the moment" is a very temporary situation, and that you'll stick around and continue doing some quality work here. Thanks for your editing contributions! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Do not reopen the discussion again. You do not make me involved by just saying so. If you persist, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You are involved because you are participating in the thread and taking sides on the issues presented. You made some comments, which I addressed, and then you archived the thread in response to my comments. It is eerily similar to HP's ANI thread that really began this mess. Strangesad (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When you say something like this to me: "As usual, you just delight in stirring the pot; you certainly don't do much to improve articles at WP" you are involved and should not be taking actions that require an uninvolved admin. Strangesad (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This will be my only comment. There is nothing wrong with an admin closing a thread in which they participated except in circumstances that don't apply here. For example, if there's a request for a topic ban, the admin who determines the consensus should not have voted for or against the ban. You're wasting the community's time, which is not something new. To the extent the thread ever served a constructive purpose, it has ceased to do so. Move on to something else, hopefully something that involves improvement of articles rather than draining resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The action by JBW was unsupported by policy. The outing of someone's IP seems like a violation of policy, but I'm not sure. Asking about those things is not disruptive, and I note that the questiopns, which are very simple and straightforward, are still unanswered. Strangesad (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding his IP, these are routinely used in SPI cases, and it was already discussed in his SPI case and that was how the IP was blocked by Rschen7754 a few days ago. The SPI case, and the ensuing block was visible by over 300 million internet users. That is obvious. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed

I would encourage you to carefully read my close of the above-noted discussion. You have come precariously close to the indef block. Remember that you agreed to a set of rules and policies when you started to edit here. WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT do not go over well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I found this on your Talk page:

Your use of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	It is unfortunate that your disagreements with some admins will apparently get you blocked. (He who has the power rules...) For my part, I commend you for standing up for what you believe. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. You have not provided any sources which contradict "virtually all". Please see the FAQ discussing this specific issue, and in particular Misplaced Pages:RS/AC. We are specifically prohibited by policy from evaluating the academic consensus for ourselves, but must rely on reliable sources to do so for us, and they use "virtually all". You have provided zero sources contradicting the evaluation of the academic consensus.

The article currently says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." Bart Ehrman says: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" (p. 285 of his book given above) Van Voorst says on the theory of non-existence: "Biblical scholars and classical historians regard it as effectively refuted." (p. 16 of his book) Grant says: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (p. 200 of his book) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

All of those sources are popular books, and none of them is a historian specializing in this subject. Strangesad (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What source do you have, that states more than that author's own opinion, but that makes a statement about what the academic consensus is? Read the FAQ, and in particular read Talk:Jesus/Archive_119#Analysis_of_the_suggested_list_of_books_about_the_existence_of_Jesus and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_133#Source_reliability_regarding_history_and_biblical_analysis This question has been EXTENSIVELY discussed, and has a very wide consensus, and you would need to introduce major reliable sources specifically addressing WP:RS/AC to change it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What such source do *you* have? I have read the FAQ. Strangesad (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I quoted you 3 above. as well as the others discussed in the article and the archives linked. You can't just hand wave away reliable sources because they don't meet your personal criteria. At a minimum our sources you don't like beat your complete non-sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood. You asked for a source about academic consensus that is not just someone's opinion. I'm asking you the same. One of the sources used throughout the section on historicity is Van Voorst, whose Misplaced Pages page describes him as a pastor. Strangesad (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You did misunderstand. Obviously every opinion is just somebody's opinion. The distinction is, are they stating their opinion about the historicity of Jesus, or are they stating their opinion about the consensus of the historicity of Jesus. Do you have any sources stating something other than virtually all scholars agree he existed? (IE, not "I don't believe he existed", but "nobody believed he existed" or "there is significant academic debate about if he existed", because otherwise we have multiple sources saying the consensus is he existed. (Including one who says he thinks Jesus did not exist, but admits he is in the small minority opinion). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the changes you keep trying to make to the Jesus article

Please have a look at this essay on consensus at wikipedia : WP:CON. 12:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

None of my recent edits are changes I've tried to make before. And, they are all part of the basic integrity of the article. For example, two of the sources don't say what we say they do. So I removed them. Strangesad (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The proper action for that situation is to tag with or not delete the sources without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Behavior on Jesus

Strangesad, consider this a warning about edit warring on Jesus. You need to follow the WP:BRD cycle. If you make an edit and another editor reverts you, do not make the same edit again before obtaining consensus on the article Talk page. As a gesture of good faith, I suggest that you undo the edit you just did, which looks like your second attempt at the same edit. If I see you break WP:BRD, I'm going to block you from editing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow."
• "Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately"
• "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts ... simply because you don't like the changes.... provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Others have violated this guideline.

In short, BRD is a two-way process Those who revert have an obligation to discuss. They have not met that obligation. I removed a source, because the source is misrepresented. I was specific--it is a survey of 19th century thought, and has nothing to do with modern views. It doesn't say what we say it does. Those who have reverted have merely asserted that I am being disruptive, and have not done their part of the "D" in "BRD".

That's an impressive chunk of wikilawyering, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. Stop edit warring. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. Thanks for listening. Strangesad (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you noticed the edit you asked me to undo has now been accepted by two subsequent editors? Strangesad (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That edit was not one of the series of controversial edits you made earlier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's what the warning was for. Strangesad (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Preempting_discussion_of_Jesus

Based upon the consensus of the community discussion, you are topic banned from all pages (including discussion pages) related to Jesus or Christianity, broadly construed.

You are also warned to stop removing/refactoring comments of other editors, further actions of this sort may lead to blocking by any admin at their discretion. - jc37 00:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, as that was a lengthy post, and you (User:Strangesad) may not have seen this talk page notice until after you hit "save page". But it ends with that post. You are topic banned, and any further violations to it may lead to further sanction (such as being blocked). - jc37 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no community consensus to topic ban. I think you are violating policy. See new discussion on ANI. Please provide an accounting of how you assessed community consensus. The majority of those wanting to ban have previously opposed my views on related articles, and thus are not supposed to be considered when assessing consensus. It is supposed to be a consensus of impartial editors. Strangesad (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just because someone may have opposed you in something doesn't mean they're not objective, or that they're involved in the strict sense of WP:INVOLVED. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly nonsense to think that if you've opposed someone in a dispute, you're involved in the dispute. How do you define "involved in the underlying dispute"? Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to respond at WP:AN/I. - jc37 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)