Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 17 February 2013 (→Vandalism at Jesus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greetings!

	Welcome To Misplaced Pages!
	Hello Humanpublic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! As always, remember to sign your posts using 4 tildes (4 of these ~.) Otherwise we won't even know who typed in the comment. Jayemd (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Humanpublic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Misplaced Pages Teahouse.

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages or the Tutorial
• Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here!

Edit to The House of Mirth

Thank you very much for trimming the content on The House of Mirth. There are many articles on Misplaced Pages about fictional material (such as films, tv or novels) which have an overabundance of plot information and not enought focus on the rest of the real world context of the work. We actually have an essay on cleaning up articles that overemphasis plot at Misplaced Pages:Plot-only description of fictional works, if you are interested. I also left some useful links in a template just above so that you can find more information about editing if you need to. I hope your experience with Misplaced Pages thus far has been good! Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

WP:HEAR

I think you need to read WP:HEAR, and WP:SPI as well. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. Humanpublic (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, read WP:HEAR and WP:STICK. The discussion at Talk:Jesus has been closed a second time. If you reopen it, it will be reclosed immediately and manually archived, and your disruptive behavior will be brought up to the admins. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive, except your saber-rattling. I responded to comments left for me. If you don't want to participate, don't. If you don't want to read the thread, don't. You're just attempting to censor. Humanpublic (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:HEAR is there exactly for that purpose. By your argument WP:HEAR should not exist, but it does. So WP:HEAR must be respected. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You have refused to respond to almost everything I've said, and when you have responded with something besides sarcasm, it has been a straw man. For example, I say many scholars express no opinion on the existence of Jesus, and you argue as if I've said many scholars object to the existence of Jesus. You can't invoke HEAR when you don't even understand what is being said. Humanpublic (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seek consensus, not revert

Please also read WP:TPG. Per WP:TPG I have enclosed your off-topic comments. Also note that per WP:TPG you should not undo the actions of other editors, so please do not undo my edits, or those of other editors. You need to seek consensus for undoing those. So seek consensus now, not revert.History2007 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is hardly off-topic, and given how often this topic recurs, there's obviously no consensus. You are censoring. If the subject doesn't interest you, leave it alone. That's all. Humanpublic (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually consensus decides these things. So you should seek that not revert. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR

And please do read WP:3RR and avoid edit warring against multiple editors. You know that it will only lead to a block. Remember: In Misplaced Pages, consensus is king. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that despite that notice, you hit revert again. You are engaging in edit warring. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I would be blocked for wanting someone who replied to me to be able to see my response. You are censoring. If you don't want to read that thread, don't read it. What is wrong with you? Humanpublic (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Because WP:3RR is a "bright line rule" and once you cross it you will be blocked. Read it now please and stop now. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are vandalizing and censoring. THere is no reason to prevent interested people from participating in the discussion. If it doesn't interest you, leave it alone. You are preventing ReformedArsenal from seeing my response to his comment. Humanpublic (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDALISM. The multiple editors who have closed the discussion because it's become nothing but mantra chanting for your useless deaf ears were acting in good faith, and if you continue to accuse any of them of vandalism or censorship I will add a note about personal attacks to the report I'm writing now. You are being nothing but disruptive -- for the Nth time, read WP:HEAR. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA & WP:TE

It also seems that this is by and large a WP:SPA account that mostly just types the same comment on the same talk page again and again, clearly running into WP:TE. I will not bother tagging the user page, but will just note it here. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR breach

Per these 4 links:

• first
• second
• third
• fourth

You have now breached WP:3RR. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ANEW

Please read my closing comments at WP:ANEW. Although you were not sanctioned, any more disruptive behavior or edit-warring on your part may be met by a block without any further notice or warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the case anymore. I also don't see how anything I did could be considered disruptive. The spirit of edit warring, according to the links I was given, is trying to win a content dispute or undo someone else's work. I never edited the article, and closing a discussion (that is progress, no less) is hardly Ian T.'s "work." You've made it possible to censor any minority opinion: the majority just closes/archives the discussion it dislikes, and then wins the edit war to keep it closed. Humanpublic (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link you need. And please follow policy, and heed warnings. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

February 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Talk:Jesus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is responding to a comment directed at me vandalism? Kindly refrain from censorship and powertrips. Humanpublic (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned before, right on this talkpage. The section is closed. Do not re-open it. Heed the warnings you've been given, follow the guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am following the guidelines. You're interpretation of them is in error, and your actions are abusive. Humanpublic (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Seb az86556. You have been told about WP:V by a number of users over a number of months, and are running over WP:HEAR and WP:Forum issues here. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to your edits on Talk:Jesus

I happen to agree. There were many historians living during the time of Christ, and not one of them made mention of Jesus' fame, miracles, and crucifixion until after the popularization of the four gospels. Josephus, a widely relied source for the historicity of Jesus by Christian theologians, was interestingly born 4 years after the purported crucifixion of Jesus. His testimony is not convincing. Anyways, Take care. Nashhinton (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to bring logic to religion is impossible, and bringing it to the dominant religion of particular culture even mores. It seems rather likely that the page is monitored by a flock (so to speak) of Christian editors. Humanpublic (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I do take heart from the overturning of the censorship-by-archiving issue mentioned above. Humanpublic (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Jesus

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Jesus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. There is no consensus for deleting the sourced content you're consistently removing Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism are disruptive, according to the last admin comment on this. Humanpublic (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it and disruptive editing

Please read Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it and stop deleting items from Misplaced Pages that run against arguments you are presenting on article talk pages:

• In this edit you deleted a reference to the Oxford Dictionaty and added a website. I have not looked at the website yet (which may eventually get WP:LINKROT), but the Oxford Dictionary is a good source.

• In the next edit you deleted a source statement that may go against your arguments elsewhere.

Please stop item deletions that relate to talk page discussions you are having elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please present the text from Oxford Encyclopedia. The other deletions were invalid sources and misrepresentations of the sources. Humanpublic (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)