User talk:Joanakestlar

Portugal comes from the ancient Roman cities of Portus and Calem, situated at the river Douro's mouth. These originated the Condato Portucalense (Portucalense County), then Reino Portucalense (Portucalense Kingdom), then Reino de Portugal (Kingdom of Portugal).

Joanakestlar (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Crusades, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Feel free to discuss your proposed blanking on the article talk page but doing so again, especially with a personal attack, and you'll be reported. Stalwart111 13:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with "ownership" - for things to be included in Wikipedia articles they need to be verified by reliable sources. Adding your personal opinion to articles is referred to here as "original research" and is typically reverted. You are now edit-warring for which you can be blocked. Again, not MY personal opinion, just the basic rules and guidelines around here. Stalwart111 02:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, and in a very euphemistical way, you're saying that any thing I add, will get reverted! I can see you verifying every sentence in this site...

It's not a euphemism - if you don't have a source, your POV will be reverted. I didn't undo your last edit. There are thousands and thousands of active users here and few will find your conduct acceptable. I haven't edited that article since your last revert and adding pointless warnings to my USERPAGE (rather than my talk page) is just silly. Feel free to keep going (I couldn't care less) you'll just be blocked anyway. Stalwart111 04:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you should see the definition of euphemism...

Perhaps I can help you understand what is happening with this one. Your statement "aimed at defending the Christians from Muslim invasion and oppression" is already covered by the cited references for Thomas Madden (a published academic historian) asserting that the Crusades were purely defensive campaigns. These references are within a context that they are not universally agreed among historians (as can been seen by other citations in the article). Firstly, Christians cannot be seen as a single actor in these conflicts, the Orthodox Church, Latin Church, Coptics etc all had differing perspectives (particularly in the events of the fourth crusade!!). Secondly, the Muslims themselves cannot be considered a single entity, covering both Arabs and Turks. Thirdly, oppression of Christians in the context of the times doesn't stand up - restricted yes, but Christians were tolerated through the region as children of the book. Finally, timing why did the Crusades occur at the end of the 11th century when the Holy Land had already been in Muslim hands for centuries - in all probability as part of a growing assertiveness of the Latin church. All of these are cited in the article whereas it has been pointed out to you that your edit has no references. If you do re-edit you will need sources to make it stick - but I don't agree with you premise.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, except with the part Christian were tolerated. They were treated as second rate citizens, with taxes that Muslims didnt have to pay, and they were generally mistreated by them. Anyway, I think wikipedia is in the hands of PC stalinists, so no wonder editors are leaving en masse! Joanakestlar (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course, true. But it does ignore two crucial points. Firstly, the level of toleration for difference in both the Eastern Empire & the various Muslim states was far greater than would be expected in the Latin states of western Europe. Secondly, at the time the standards of freedom in the west were much much lower than now. That's not PC, that's history. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should learn History from neutral sources, not far -left extremist ones! Saying the muslims were more tolerant than the Christians is nothing but a laugh! Joanakestlar (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The terms left and right are fairly meaningless in this conversation as they refer to ideas not invented until much later. Although, these terms can be used for the historical analysis of the times. Whatever you say, the medieval church was not renowned for its tolerance. Both the Albigensian Crusade and Northern Crusades demonstrate intent of conquest, conversion or extermination of non-Christians. You cannot deny that Jews were expelled from both England and Spain, sometimes murderously at the time - not an event repeated in Jerusalem where Jews and Muslims fought to defend the city before being killed in large numbers by the first crusade. You cannot deny that the Fourth Crusade was conducted entirely against the Christians of the region: the crusade killed them in their tens of thousands without even getting to within a thousand miles of the Muslims. I suppose the Spanish Inquisition was a benevolent charity in your eyes. Thomas Madden is a historian that made the case for the crusades being a defensive war and this is recognised in the article even though this is an uncommon view amongst scholars. And this comes to the point of why a number of editors have reverted your 71 bytes, it is opinion, yours, and deeply felt but despite repeated requests you haven't cited a single source from a published historian to support it. Now you either don't know how Wikipedia works or chose to ignore it. If you read the policies you have been pointed at you might learn enough to get your edit accepted.193.109.254.21 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:Stalwart111. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on talk:Crusades. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling other editors "anti-white racists and anti-christian xenophobians" (as you did here) is neither constructive nor acceptable. If you repeat such behavior, you will be blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that saying I'm prejudiced doesn't count as a personal attack, then? Joanakestlar (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mote. Beam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jawohl mein Führer!Joanakestlar (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battleground_and_PA_originating_from_Crusades. Feel free to provide your view there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Misogyny Joanakestlar (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

Your recent editing history at Crusades shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many users do you have? Joanakestlar (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. John Reaves 19:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for gross incivility during the block above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

I didn't extend your block, but I endorse John Reaves' decision to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]