Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 16 February 2015

My opening gambit

Hello Renejs,

I have developed over the years, in my OT/Hebrew Scripture historical studies, a decidedly radical minimalist approach and position.

I have been following with interest the developments here in NT (with an eye for trying to feel the possible impact that OT minimalism can have in NT), and since you have just mentioned Lemche's and Thompson's supposed professional predicament in Kopenhagen, I thought I could ask you:

What would they have to fear, in terms of their academic positions and reputations, by pushing more overtly for the establishment of an NT minimalist current, at least in Europe?

Since this would all really fall under the rubric of a personal conversation ("eye-to-eye" as much as possible in written digital communications) about academic politics and epistemological strategies, feel free, if you are so inclined, to just reply to my email directly, through my own user page, where on the Tools menu on the left side you should see the option "Email this user." I was looking for this option here on your page, but I couldn't see/find it.

Best regards, warshy 19:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christ myth theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering, Anselm --Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Misplaced Pages community. I do one revert and you yell "Block him!" That's pretty revealing, since you've been the most active recent reverter/editor. BTW, Dawkins BLP has no relevance. There's no problem with sourcing his material which is entirely factual. Obviously, you simply don't like is his position. That's POV. Renejs (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you're tendentiously editing, Renejs. You're here to "right great wrongs," you keep repeating edits without independent input to place undue importance on a single aspect of the subject, while providing inadequate citations -- over and over without convincing anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious COI editing and socking at Christ Myth Theory. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished at the trumped up developments. . . Of course, I am not "socking" anybody. I do not have multiple accounts. I barely know what "socking" is. I am writing this here because I have been blocked from input on the ANI page.

Jeppiz is a loose cannon. He has engineered two ANI's against me in two months--both without cause. Now I have been blocked from editing but the accusation (socking) against me is ridiculous and groundless. I have also been accused of "edit warring" though my recent editing has been benign--only two reverts in two days (fewer than Jeppiz, St. Anselm, and Gekritzl) and several notes on the talk page showing my interest in forming a consensus. I am being deprived of my wiki voice. This is harassment. There need to be disciplinary actions against those who are maliciously harassing me and now, especially, trumping up charges of "socking." That is very serious. I suggest a topic ban against Jeppiz for malicious and false accusations, or perhaps a global wiki ban. He is a disservice to Misplaced Pages. Renejs (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

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.  Courcelles 19:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Renejs (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock request. Extending block to 2 weeks for block evasion through Special:Contributions/109.156.158.20. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 16 February 2015 (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.

Hello adminstrators. All I did was ask for a reason for St. Anselm's multiple reverts (more reverts than me!) of the ENTIRE section "Richard Dawkins" in the CMT.

Why are you blocking me? You should be blocking users who arbitrarily edit huge segments of content without reason. . .

Another thing: I have reverted less than St. Anselm. Why am "I" being blocked here? I am allowed 3 reverts per day. I have used two reverts in two days. And they are for good cause: I'm demanding a reason for the wholesale removal of important material. That's damn good wiki behavior.

It's people who remove huge swathes of material without reason who should be blocked from editing.

Here's hoping you guys do a better job in future, because I still hold out some hope for Misplaced Pages. But it's getting pretty slim. . . You guys are caving to numbers and not considering facts or article quality.

Thanks,

Renejs (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin Renejs is socking to evade the block .Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:Further note to reviewing admin - Jeppiz is mistaken. I am not René Salm and have no connection with him (indeed, I have long thought he should be topic-banned if not completely banned for his highly tendentious editing, his blatant NPOV violations and his long history of making personal attacks on other editors who dare to go with things like facts and the evidence rather than his 'faith of the heart' approach). I'm also personally less than flattered at being compared to a notorious pseudoscholar and religious zealot like Salm, whose work bears about as much relationship to historical reality as the average novel by Philippa Gregory (in some cases maybe rather less).109.156.158.20 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I can see now that the opinions proposed by you and by Renejs hardly match, so the charge of socking and block evasion appears to have been mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished at the trumped up developments. . . Of course, I am not "socking" anybody. I do not have multiple accounts. I barely know what "socking" is. I am writing this here because I have been blocked from input on the ANI page.

Jeppiz is a loose cannon. He has engineered two ANI's against me in two months--both without cause. Now I have been blocked from editing but the accusation (socking) against me is ridiculous and groundless. I have also been accused of "edit warring" though my recent editing has been benign--only two reverts in two days (fewer than Jeppiz, St. Anselm, and Gekritzl) and several notes on the talk page showing my interest in forming a consensus. I am being deprived of my wiki voice. This is harassment. There need to be disciplinary actions against those who are maliciously harassing me and now, especially, trumping up charges of "socking." That is very serious. I suggest a topic ban against Jeppiz for malicious and false accusations, or perhaps a global wiki ban. He is a disservice to Misplaced Pages. Renejs (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How charming. However, this "loose cannon" contacted the admin who first blocked you to verify you're not the IP and to reverse the lengthening of your block, and posted on ANI that your block should be shortened. I'm pleased to see it has been. I've started one ANI about you, not two. As for me being a disservice to Misplaced Pages, it's a subjective opinion so hard to say much. I happen to believe in science and academia and defend science against blind beliefs, whichever form they take. It does lead to accusations much worse than yours, including Palestinians calling me *** Jew, Israelis calling me a *** Arab, some Uzbek users calling me c*cksu**ing Tajik and so on. People with extreme opinions who are here to right great wrongs are hard to please.Jeppiz (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was I blocked in the first place? You write that you believe in "science and academia," but you can't even see facts because you've edit warred more than me and yet once again contrive an ANI against me for that reason. So, you're a hypocrite on top of a bully--and, whether you agree or not--very POV (because this is ultimately all content based and you know it). You just need to get off my back. You're an ANI candidate for harassment. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)