User talk:Gonzales John
Welcome!
|
Just to let you know I reverted your major edits to Richard Carrier. I thought some of your edit summaries were misleading (that material was not unsourced) and at the end of your four latest edits you left the article with some red citation errors in the Notes section. It is also not in any way correct to describe the theory that Christ is ahistorical as a conspiracy theory - it is a legitimate debate among historians. In the future, please make your case on the talk page for the article before making huge changes of this nature. Thank you. --Krelnik (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Krelnik|Krelnik]], Most scholars, even non-Christians, believe a historical Jesus existed. To quote:
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[1] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[2] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[3] James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[4] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "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".[5] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=16}
And this, too :
These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.[6]
- OK fine. I really don't want to debate you about this tangential matter. I wrote to you about the Richard Carrier article, not about Christ Myth Theory in general. The fact is that just because Richard Carrier espouses a non-consensus opinion on a historical matter, that does not make him a conspiracy theorist. As far as I can tell you've never interacted with the Richard Carrier article or talk page before, and your edits ripped out a huge hunk of text that was arrived at by consensus by a large number of other editors. That's why I reverted you. Now if there are individual edits you'd like to propose, please go to the Carrier talk page and do so, by all means. I'm not averse to removal of material, frankly my gut feeling is the article is a bit long for what it is. But please seek consensus first. --Krelnik (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.
- ^ Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.
- ^ Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity. pp. 55, 61. ISBN 978-0-8308-7853-6.
- ^ Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-521-04460-8.
- ^ Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.
- ^ "Did Jesus Exist?". Huffington Post.
Talk page deletion
[edit]It is not considered good form to delete others' contributions to talk pages; see these guidelines. I strongly advise you not to do so in future. Clean Copytalk 16:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary
[edit]
(Not explanation given for how a mere five words, al reliably sourced is "significant". (HAHAHAHAhAhAHAHAhA I sense bias!)
Can you be less immature? Clubjustin Talkosphere 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary
[edit]
(Not explanation given for how a mere five words, al reliably sourced is "significant". (HAHAHAHAhAhAHAHAhA I sense bias!)
Can you be less immature? Clubjustin Talkosphere 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) @Clubjustin Talkosphere 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, you see I was just doing that to see how people would react if someone suddenly acted immaturely. Lately I was starting to think that immature people are getting away with ignorance and immaturity too easily, so I pretended to be imatur just to see if the world, or Wikipedia, still works well enough to have immature people punished. Gonzales John (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary
[edit]
(Not explanation given for how a mere five words, al reliably sourced is "significant". (HAHAHAHAhAhAHAHAhA I sense bias!)
Can you be less immature? Clubjustin Talkosphere 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) @Clubjustin Talkosphere 11:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, you see I was just doing that to see how people would react if someone suddenly acted immaturely. Lately I was starting to think that immature people are getting away with ignorance and immaturity too easily, so I pretended to be immature just to see if the world, or Wikipedia, still works well enough to have immature people punished. Gonzales John (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
[edit]
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Jesus.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jesus. 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 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring 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 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gonzales_John reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: ). Thank you. FyzixFighter (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Be more careful
[edit]Gonzales, you may be right on the article substance, my history with the users you are arguing with leads me to think you are, but you really need to stop using edit summaries like this and be more careful about formatting your talk page edits (what you did to my post here appears to be a recurring problem). I think you are acting in good faith (again, I think you are right), but actions like this tend to lead very quickly to users getting blocked indefinitely.
You were not "blocked for restoring reliably sourced info"; you were blocked for edit-warring. There are several ways that restoring reliably sourced info could qualify as edit-warring when users on the other side were not blocked for the same reason. Generally, communication through edit summaries and refusal to engage in constructive dialogue in the talk page automatically makes one the "aggressor" in what is otherwise a two-sided edit war. Another way is if an admin really did make a bad call and block only one party when both sides were equally guilty of edit-warring. A third is if the reliably sourced info genuinely did not belong in the article for whatever reason (irrelevant to the topic, included in the lead but not the body, unencyclopedic information, etc.) and this was already established by talk page consensus before the edit-warring took place.
I do not know if what happened is any or all of the above. If it was the second, then tell me about it here and I will help you. The second has happened to me on several occasions (the admins used other epithets than "edit-warring"), but once I was unblocked I clarified what had gone wrong and the admins realized their error, so if you feel this is what happened here I sympathize. If what happened was the first or third, then unfortunately, even if you were right, you were still in the wrong in the eyes of Wikipedia.
Anyway, let's talk about it. :-)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gonzales_John reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: ). Thank you. FyzixFighter (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. NeilN talk to me 10:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Gonzales, this is going to keep happening to you until you realize that making any edits to that article directly except for uncontroversial ones and ones that have already been discussed is only going to cause trouble. I've dealt with these kind of situations before. The way to do it is to discuss on the talk page. I have no doubt that several users active on the talk page are people with theological biases against the kind of edits you (and, if we're being honest, I) would like to make to the article. Those users will either be overruled on the talk page when it comes to this or that specific issue, or you can take it to RSN, FTN, RFC, or DRN (depending on the specific issue) and they will be overruled there, or you may be overruled. In my experience, the last scenario rarely happens in the long run to users who are using quality academic sources.
But if they can catch you out on some behavioural issue like "edit-warring" or "incivility" before the content dispute can be brought before the wider community then nothing else matters, because you will be blocked. ANEW is, in my experience, a slimier venue than ANI, but ANI is not great either. Anyway, just promise not to engage in activities that could be perceived by outside observers who don't look at content (because most admins and Arbitrators don't) as disruptive, and this will stop happening. Believe me; I know.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
If you state you will not edit the article for two weeks and only use the talk page, I will unblock you. --NeilN talk to me 12:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Allrighty :-)Gonzales John (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unblocked as the editor has agreed not to edit the article Jesus for two weeks. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
God
[edit]Hello,
I just clarified a "dubious" template i put in the article God; I don't doubt that god is commonly seen as masculine, but the cause for this given by the article seems dubious to me. ----Mathmensch (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I understand, sorry if I caused injury.Gonzales John (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Gonzales John, I have reverted your edit. Though the article's subject has been concluded as a "myth" per consensus, we should try and avoid pushing POVs where other editors might assume we're enforcing some sort of WP:AGENDA. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
Your block has been increased to indefinite as you have edited logged out to evade your block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Gonzales John. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Transition of Yahweh into the Abrahamic God
[edit]
Hello, Gonzales John. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Transition of Yahweh into the Abrahamic God".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Patty in a red dress.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Patty in a red dress.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Patty in a red dress.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Patty in a red dress.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Peggy Jean.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Peggy Jean.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
