Misplaced Pages

Your submission at Articles for creation

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Echo (Elephant).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi, sorry, did not want to get on your nerves, but those websites are not WP:RS in general and also subject to WP:LINKROT, so books by good publishers are better. Your statement was, however, correct. But per WP:V correct means very little and sources rule. I added an RS source anyway, and made it 4 pagars per WP:LEDE. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My sources seem reliable to me. Can you explain what's wrong with them? Yours, which I just found on google books, is about the literary and philosophical treatment of resurrection. Not the definition or actual possibility of resurrection. Strangesad (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All the book needs to say is that there are views which say it is impossible. So we actually agree on what there is to say, the question is attribution. www.uniformlaws.org is not RS for sure, given n publisher. NHS.UK is a medical site and using it is WP:OR given no mention of resurrection, etc. And they are all LINKROT items that may change tomorrow. The book I used was about Resurection. You can ask for further views on WP:RSN if you like. That is the easiest way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For your information

Discussion of your practices Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are currently involved in heavy edit warring at Resurrection of Jesus. Five different users have all spoken out against your proposed introduction, nobody has spoken for it. Despite this consensus, you continue to edit war and revert to your suggestion version for the fifth time. Please stopJeppiz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your continuous edit-warring is discussed at WP:ANI .Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. :-) You made the point about religion vs. principle very well. Humanpublic (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad, your editing style is giving me some cause for concern. You are oppositional and confrontational and seem to be positively enjoying the conflict. Your proposed ban for Jeppiz was the height of silliness. You have rejected warnings and requests from other people because they are involved, or not administrators. Well I'm an uninvolved admin and I'm letting you know that I find your editing style disruptive. If you continue in this vein I will block you. Learn to collaborate, or you editing privileges will be revoked. Kim Dent-Brown 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are you? Do you know what you're doing? You have never talked to me, never participated in any of the numerous threads, made no attempt to hear all sides that I'm aware of. Back off. My proposed ban for Jeppiz is a good idea. Just about every description of our dispute that he has given is a distortion. He is forum shopping, resurrecting issues that were just closed on ANI less than week ago, in the hopes of ensaring an admin just like you. Your comment above gives no diffs, and as far as I can tell, your different opinion about my proposed topic ban is not a rule-grounded basis for threats of blocks. If you disagree with the proposal,state your objection in the discussion. I don't care about your threats. Strangesad (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you whether or not you heed my warning, but this is not a topic for discussion. Edit more collaboratively or don't edit at all. Kim Dent-Brown 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am editing collaboratively. Jeppiz is not. Honestly, you haven't provided a single diff: how do you expect me to know what you're talking about? Strangesad (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not you who gets to decide whether or not your style is collaborative. Here are some diffs, as requested. (And by the way, this is not an invitation to a blow-by-blow rebuttal!)

• Accusing others of censorship
• Describing other editors as playing games
• Implying others cannot read
• Describing others as drama-seeking
• Bad faith call for topic ban
• Calling others dishonest
• Altering others' contributions as a closely involved participant

That's just what I found in the first page of contribs. None of these on their own is blockworthy; as a group, these edits define a combative and uncollaborative editing style. I'm sure there are even better examples, but the fact that more than 50% of your recent edits have distinct deficits is a telling point. Kim Dent-Brown 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You've made no effort to be even-handed, and the diffs above show nothing. You now seem to be searching around solely for diffs that confirm your bias. You are also violating AGF rather horribly. Go away. Strangesad (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hohum, sipping tea and mellowing out now... just an observation that if you had done nothing and let the ANI threads wind down, as other admins were doing, I probably would have spent the last hour returning to work on an article I've started. Instead, you made a bunch of accusations and threats, and I felt compelled to defend myself and complain about unequal treatment Just an observation about how admins influence where editors expend their energy. Strangesad (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

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.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough. You can't keep inserting material into the article when a clear consensus on the talk page is against it. You've been warned several times about this. Don't re-add the material until there is a consensus to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because this block isn't supported by the rules. I've made one edit to the article in the last week. It is true that I've tried to add the basic text in question several times. However, it was initially supported by the only other editor on the article, History2007. The only disagreement we had was regarding sourcing, not the basic idea of the text itself. History2007 then changed his mind about the text itself without comment on Talk, so I didn't know the consensus had changed. Around the same time, other editors showed up and reverted the my edit. I've tried to reinsert the text--in different forms--three times in a period of 10 days or so since I realized there wasn't a consensus. The discussion on the Talk was ended by others. I made the last two comments on Talk, responding to others, waited a couple of days for a response, and when no objections were made to my most recent points, tried re-adding the text. It was merely checking whether the comments in Talk had been accepted, since nobody had responded to them. Blocking for 1 edit in the last week, after discussion in Talk, is not supported by the rules Strangesad (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is indeed fully supported by our edit warring policy. You've inserted your material at least six times into the article, and it has been meet with resistance from several editors. You must gain a clear consensus to insert the material now that you're well aware that many other disagree with you. A brief pause in a long conversation on the article's talk page is not a consensus. Please limit yourself to that talk page until such time as you have support for your position; there are many other avenues for dispute resolution if you feel you have reached an impasse. Kuru (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2013 (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.

You must be kidding. Admins are incompetent. That description above of the facts is completely wrong. Yeah, SS added the material 6 times, and yeah her edits were met with the resistance. The resistance was not always to the material: it was to sourcing, and to the location in the lead. Several of those edits were merely responses to those concerns. Where did this come from anyway? Humanpublic (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."