Wikiglobaleditor

Hello, Wikiglobaleditor, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Addbot (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Thanks for your note

Hello W. Thanks for your thanks. It is no problem at all - there are so many guidelines and regulations around here. I've been editing over 6 years and there are still things that I am learning. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three experienced editors are disagreeing that the information you wish to add is reliably sourced. Reverting half a dozen times, accusing them of bias, reporting them for vandalism and trying to get the page locked to your version is not the way to deal with this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If the documentaries made by Government of India or News media like BBC is NOT reliable - then what is RELIABLE according to your prudent discretion ?? Wikipedia is not about holding some religious belief – it’s all about scientific and historical facts and findings, and presenting the truth in front of the world community – which it is created for. For disputed facts you can present the arguments of the both sides, but you CANNOT forcibly suppress the other point of view and delete data. But this is exactly what this "experienced" users were doing. They are not even willing to see the references I have given. I told them repeatedly not to continuously revert my changes as a topic regarding this already created in the discussion page, so that users can discuss there until a consensus is being made. But they were reluctant to hear. If my edits are disputed, then Wikipedia has a clear policy on disputed facts : to present arguments from the BOTH sides - That's what I am doing.

Wikipedia is not a Democracy, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and truth can't be suppressed by numbers. I just wanted to voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia by updating a page based on the latest researches of the renowned historians & scholars from different parts of the world - and if that leads to blocking - then I am sorry to say, Wikipedia will fail to be a reliable source itself very soon - and knowledgable people will keep distance from editing Wikis. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You can find out what we consider reliable sources by reading our policy: WP:RS. Whether a source is produced by a government is not one of the criteria for reliability. The scientific fact and findings you are talking about ar not generally presented in television, which is a medium of entertainment, not of scholarship. Furthermore, since wikipedia is not a democracy, we have rules and policies regulating exactly the ways in which information can be added to articles - it requires discussion and arguments - not editwarring. You have not complied with those policies - rather you forcibly attempted to insert text into an article, without concern for the arguments of the editors telling you that it was not up to our standards. If you wish to edit here you must read, understand and follow our policies. That is the only way a collaborative encyclopedia can work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Government of India was not established, nor is it qualified, to judge the history of early Christianity, 1st century Judea or Galilee, or Jesus. Ditto for the BBC. You ask what is a reliable source on a scholarly topic? Simple answer: books by established scholars (e.g. at established major research universities) recently published by major university presses (Chicago, California, Duke, Cambridge, etc) or articles published by similar PhDs in well-established peer-reviewed journal articles. Just go to a library and read. When you have read enough you will know something. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, your edits, while referenced, are not in line with the mainstream views, and as such qualify as a fringe view. Such views, when they do warrant any mention at all, warrant only separate articles with nothing but a "see also" mention in the main article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I first heard the Kashmir theory 30 years ago from my landlord who was an Amadiyah from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, when I was a student. One of his daughters had beautiful curly red hair, and he told me it was a sign that he had Jesus or one of the disciples as an ancestor. One could write a perfectly respectable article on it as a well known fringe theory, with the added interest that there are probably academic sources from the Indian subcontinent that examine it as a folk belief.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant understand why you all are failed to judge this fact as a neutral point of view! WP:FRINGE clearly mentions that "... for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." How can you say the work of all scholars is NOT reliable because they are from India. Documentaries are not the source of the data I inserted, they refer to the hundreds of old manuscript, inscription, archaeological proofs, and books written by scholars not from India - but mainly from western countries. How can you ignore all of them and insult their researches and forcibly stick to a rigid point based on your prejudice - simply because this article is about a person - with whom a religious belief is associated. Does Wikipedia give you the authority to do so? How can you make Wikipedia - which is supposed to be world's first digital heritage - a static source of data on some particular article - only because it is sensitive. Before making comments here none of you gone though the documentaries - I am sure, because it takes atleast 1 hour to watch these information and cross-check the references mentioned there - but my edits were reverted and I was blocked within few minutes. I simply restated in the main article the latest researches and finding from some independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality, to present the controversial ideas in a neutral manner according to the WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. If you were not agree - you could raise a debate in the talk page, or you could move the details in some different sections, you could have enhance the claim by citing the works and findings mentioned in those lengthy documentaries - but you simply deleted the whole data I inserted not only once - but several times. No action was taken against those who indiscriminately and repeatedly reverted the same data again and again all within a while - but surprisingly I was blocked!! You should know one thing - no matter how much you misuse your Wiki-admin power, you can never change the historical facts - being a wiki-admin or wiki-policy expert - will never make you a historian or scholar, truth shall always prevail, you can only make some delay to appear it in a particular page of a particular website! - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Write an article about it. The article Jesus is conveying the current mainstream view, which is primarily western. You are right about that. Write an article about this really very longstanding view held on the Indian subcontinent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus is the first ever known personality, who connected east with west with his prudence, his unparalleled charisma, and his message of "Love". He equally belongs to east & west. Any article on him should have both the eastern and western views, then only it may be called mainstream. I just wanted to reflect this through my edits, as it was my humble tribute to this great personality of ancient times, who did many things which others can't even imagine during those days. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This is the English Wikipedia, and rightly or wrongly our primary focus is the mainstream view of the English speaking world, which does place it's emphasis in a particular way. There is an article to be written about the view of Jesus in India, and it doesn't have to be fringe in the way that spoon bending is fringe. he problem is that the mythos of the subcontinent has been taken up by authors in the west with their own axes to grind, and this is what makes it WP:FRINGEElen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by English speaking world? Do you think today English is limited to England or USA and Australia only? Do you have any idea of the importance of English in Indian subcontinent? English is the only connecting and common official language of that subcontinent? Do you have any idea of the number of the population of the Indian subcontinent who can speak/read/write in English? That number will be more than the double of the western "English speaking world" you are referring to. The question is whether you will show respect to the historical facts (irrespective of when it was discovered) or will you clinch to static religious facts - when a encyclopedic article is concerned? Ask yourself - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me make it blindingly obvious, as it's obviously not going in by collegial discussion. If you edit war to put that back in the article again, you will get blocked for a longer period. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I was treated and humiliated here - I am doubtful that in future whether I'll make any voluntary contribution to Wikipedia - unless I get apology from appropriate authority. As far as life of Jesus is concerned - I'll take it to the much broader international community including historians and scientists in a much broader forum. As far as Wikipedia is concerned I will just make my voice heard in the Talk:Jesus page to those 'experienced' editors of English Wikipedia - as I am unable to do so due to this blocking and they unilaterally showing their 'knowledge' over their. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An apology for sanctioning you for breaking the rules seems unlikely. You are only blocked for 72 hours. After that time, you can discuss it on the talkpage, just don't edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiglobaleditor, you may have been humbled by having your edits reverted, but you were not humiliated - "humiliated" suggests that you take it personally. Working at Wikipedi is a humbling experience for all of us, and you should not take that personally. This being the encyclopedia anyone can edit means you can edit but it also means any of the thousands of editors can revert your edit. In fact, it is a virtual inevitability that any editor who has worked here for any length of time will have been reverted t some point - I have been reverted countless times and I have even been blocked a few times. So what?

I respectfully do not agree with Ellen if she meant that that "European" views (I personally find "Western" and "Eastern" to be meaningless in this generic sense) should dominate Wikipedia. When she clarified about English sources, she is being only pragmatic _ at English Wikipedia, editors will inevitably be people who can read and write English. This will include people from all over the world, since countries like Nigeria and India are part of the English speaking world. But none of this is relevant.

What is relevant is the fact that we provide accounts of mainstream scholarship (whether it come out of Pakistan or China or Germany or any other country). We only use reliable sources, and we do not use fringe views. You seem to be unaware of our most basic policies. There is a link to all of these at the Wikipedia main page. Surely you took the time to learn about Wikipedia before you tried to change one of its articles, right? Well, I assume the best and thus assume you did this. But just in case out of some kind of disrespect, you did not - I have added a welcome template at the top of this page with all the links to policies, guidelines and essays about working here successfully that we all assume any new editor has taken the time to read. Have you gone to WP:Five Pillars? Have you bothered to read our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR? Have you respected the comments many volunteer editors have provided you, directing you to look at our policies in fringe views and on reliable sources? Frankly, what you have written most recently suggests that you have not bothered to do this. Or, if you actually have read these policies, then you are willfully disregarding them. Either way shows a tremendous lack of respect for your fellow editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We work only by working together. Since we are strangers to one another (I might live in the same town as you, or on the other side of the world, you do not know) we can collaborate only by working within the framework of these policies. If you edit without bothering to read them, or read them and ignore them, you insult all of us.

You seem to have personal views about Jesus. here is some friendly advice: do not edit articles relating to Jesus. It is a rule here that none of us put our own views into articles. This takes self-discipline many people need time to develop. One way to develop this is to work on articles that you have no personal interest in. If you have no personal interest, you are unlikely to violate this basic rule of Wikipedia, and you will gain valuable experience in how our policies apply and how to collaborate, and you will help build our encyclopedia. Isn't that what you want to do? Help write a great encyclopedia? Well, go to the article on Ferdowsi or Carbon or some article on a relatively neglected topic. Then, research the topic following our policies for research, and then contribute to the article following our policies for writing. Your work would be appreciated and you could be proud about having made real contributions.

But i can tell you right now that a You-Tube video is a no-starter. I watched the first part of that video by the way and I can tell you that any real scholar - whether in India, Pakistan, China, or the United States - could possibly take it seriously. Each sentence reveals a sloppy, unscholarly approach that any established scholar would be embarrassed to say or write. The video certainly is not aimed at professional scholars. Frankly, to use this as a source is an insult to scholarship. An insult to scholarship, period. An insult to scholarship in any country and in any language. For you to use it as a source is to insult us and to try to humiliate us. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Again you are asserting your personal views on those researches which documented in those videos. Your "prejudicial" clearly evident by this statement that "You seem to have personal views about Jesus..." - watching those documentary gave you the feel - that those reflects my personal view!!! - this clearly reveals how you watched those references and your respect level for those researchers. I am gonna put my views in the Talk:Jesus page very soon, lets argue over there, My Talk page is not a good place for discussing on the the life of a person of the stature like Jesus - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bubbalah, I wrote five paragraphs and you opt to respond only the last one? If you respoect WIkipedia and if you really want to work here, it is the first four paragraphs - the bulk of my message - that you should care about. As for the fifth paragraph, I was expressing my views, but university-level researchers are a community with community-wide standards, so I was not expressing my personal point of view. Limiting ourselves just to say the first four sentences of the video, it is not my personal opinion that it is silly - I am saying that it violates all the standards that the scholarly community expects of scholarly work. I started watching with an entirely open mind (believe it or not) but it was the actual words that the narrator spoke that convinced me that this is a work not meant to be taken seriously by scholars. If you wish to know what works meant to be taken seriously by scholars look like, read any of the books by well-respected scholars and published by respected academic presses, or articles in peer-reviewed journals, cited by the current Jesus article.

I have expressed NO personal beliefs or opinions about Jesus. I told you that this is not what WP is for. I am WARNING you NOW: if you put your views about Jesus on the Jesus talk page or any WP space, you risk being blocked again. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article: to assess the significance of views and the reliability of scholars. It is NOT for you to use as a soap-box Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you show your exact true character and your real intention, that is to suppress facts and threatening others - when you are completely defeated through arguments. Listen, you have no right to twist Wiki-policies according to your own favor. Being a wiki-policy expert - will NEVER make you a historian or scholar, truth shall always prevail, and I am NOT afraid of being blocked by naive people, as I know it quite well how to raise the truth to the appropriate forum. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Being a wiki-policy expert does not make me a scholar; having a PhD. makes me a scholar - but it does not matter whether I have three PhDs or whether I never finished high school. One need not be a scholar to edit Wikipedia, and indeed, no scholar should use Wikipedia as a place to publish their own scholarly research - per policy. But Wikiglobal editor, you know what the great thing is about being a wiki-policy expert? Anyone can become a Wikipolicy expert, because all of our policies are easy to access, we operate with complete transparency, people who have no higher degrees, indeed, people who have no formal education, can read our policies and learn how to contribute here. Even you can - all you need to do is follow all of the well-intentioned and constructive advice you have been offered, by me and by others. That you prefer to argue with other people rather than use this time to read our policies, so that you could edit without getting into easily avoidable problems, is truly mysterious.

Be that as it may, you have no idea what my personal beliefs about Jesus are. I genuinely wonder what it is that I wrote that reveals to you what I believe about Jesus. I have no arguments to make, and while you have not presented any of your own arguments, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for either of us to be arguing over our beliefs about Jesus. My only argument is that when editing articles and writing on talk pages, we should follow WP policy. So far you have not offered any argument against that either. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiglobaleditor, it seems apparent from the above that you do not understand what the problems were with your edits, and you seem fully determined to repeat them. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely to pre-emptively prevent disruption to the project. At the point where you can show an administrator that you understand that Wikipedia is based on verifiable information from reliable sources not on individual perceptions of "the truth", that it has policies on handling information that is outside the mainstream, and that collegial discussion to reach an agreed form not personal attacks, is the way to edit here, then you can be unblocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Fine, now you showed how prompt you can abuse others discarding all the arguments. User:Elen_of_the_Roads - just in the previous post you assured me that "...You are only blocked for 72 hours. After that time, you can discuss it on the talkpage...", but when the user User:Slrubenstein threatened me NOT to discuss anything even on the TALK-PAGE of jesus, instead of taking action against him - you readily blocked me!!! Bravo....!!! So you are playing with your administrator privileges and that should be known to the Wikipedia & World community. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no sign of you understanding what the problem has been with your editing. If you want to be unblocked, this request isn't the way to achieve that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 19 September 2011 (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.

• Note that I have requested a review of this block on the administrators' noticeboard [1]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I never said that Wikiglobaleditor is "NOT to discuss anything." (I will put aside for now the fact that he insults me by lying about what I wrote.) In fact I specified what kinds of things we need to discuss on talk pages. Apparently Wikiglobaleditor is blind to our policies; being blind, when I tell him we need to discuss the kinds fo things our policies require, he simply sees nothing and infers that he cannot discuss anything. This only proves (1) that he does not care about our policies and (2) cares only to soap-box and push his personal point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Again lying after lying, anyone who can read English can scroll above and can see what exactly you told in Bold and Underlined words, how you threaten and insulted me. You don't have any idea who I am, how I associated in the wiki-projects and Jimmy Wales since 2004, Even you don't know what is my contribution as a Editor - just go through them - that'll give you some glimpse - whether or not I am aware of Wikipedia's aim and policies. Anyway, I don't want to argue with you people - because now I have to report my findings on wiki editorial environment to somewhere else, and that is more important. I am a busy man, cant waste enough time arguing with you all. Let's put an End here, keep me blocked for how long you want, not an issue, but please don't delete any of your comments from my talk page, atleast this much honesty I can expect from you - can't I ? -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein told you not to discuss your personal views but stick to discussing how to improve the article. Going into a fit over being reminded to follow policy doesn't suggest that you should be editing at this point. PErhaps in a few days you'll be calm enough to go back and reread the exchanges here, and I expect that you'll feel embarrassed by your own conduct when you do so. If you then decide to post a statement showing that you understand why we do not include fringe theories based on youtube videos or BBC documentaries, and that you understand why you were blocked, then I promise that I will seriously consider unblocking you. Not before. Meanwhile, good luck with your other projects that you mention.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please put an end here, please. I DON'T have any personal view, and the way I was continuously misquoted - that's really ridiculous. Just read the full story before making any comment on behalf of your friends. In-fact I don't want any further argument on this, so please don't post anything here, and provoke me to replying same thing again and again wasting my valuable time. Let's treat this as END OF DISCUSSION - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nabla, I am happy to see atleast there is someone in wiki project who (may appear irregularly) can think independently and can judge without prejudice. I am sure there are many, but they are too busy with their own field and seldom get times to contribute. In 2004, one of my friend from UK, who was then part of the core wiki team, introduced me with Jimmy Wales, and we exchanged few emails. Wiki-projects at that time was in a rudimentary stage, but jimmy and I has a bold conviction that this project is gonna be biggest cultural phenomenon of the history of mankind. Its the foundation stone for a better, safer and united world - where knowledge and fraternity shall prevail. Because both of us dreamed for a unified world. We thought that through wikiproject we'll be able to develop an universal fraternity - which was more required at that time of terrorized world. But see, how our dream has been shattered, and what type of people we get in this projects, they come here not to contribute, but show their power... which culminates to blocking. I joined as an editor just few months ago, but they interpret me as newcomer who doesn't have any knowledge of wiki policies. Just go from the Top to bottom of my page, line by line, you'll see how moronic they were while replying to my post, same post again and again, and I had to restate same reply again and again - the thing is everyone replied reading the previous post - no one cared to read it as a whole! Nabla, if things goes on like this, I am afraid - will we won't be able to give jimmy's ultimate dream a reality?! one user named User:History2007 just stated with threatening and abusing me, (Sorry I deleted his post from my page) actually he has done the first revert, and several after that. I told him repeatedly (also to others) that If you were not agree with the researches presented in those references - you could raise a debate in the talk page, or you could have moved the details in some different sections, you could have enhance the claim by citing the works and findings mentioned in those lengthy documentaries - but they simply deleted the whole data I inserted not only once - but several times. No action was taken against those who indiscriminately and repeatedly reverted the same data again and again all within a while - but surprisingly I was blocked!! I told them that these YouTube Documentaries are not the source of the data I inserted, they refer to the hundreds of old manuscript, inscription, archaeological proofs, and books written by scholars not from India - but mainly from western countries. But I was replied "The Government of India was not established, nor is it qualified, to judge the history of early Christianity... and the purpose of BBC is only to entertain people!!..." Before making comments here none of them gone though those documentaries - I am sure, because it takes atleast 1 hour to watch these information and cross-check the references mentioned there - but my edits were reverted and I was blocked within few minutes. I simply restated in the main article the latest researches and finding from some independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality, to present the controversial ideas in a neutral manner according to the WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Anyway maybe I am repeating the same thing to you which you may have gone through before. Nabla, You see one thing, I don't want to be unblocked by them, and I have already put it an end, but still they are more concerned of finding my faults in a microscopic way... hahaha. Wiki doesn't have a harmonious and collegial environment anymore - because people like you seldom get time to contribute and monitor, and that's quite natural - I can understand. Let the block be indef, so that I can show it to Jimmy or any of our common friends, and we'll definitely find some way to attract more people like you... cuidar -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The above communication addressed to Nabla is somewhat of personal nature, and may contain information that may not be suitable to be put in a public page. But as wiki doesn't have a channel for personal communication, nor it has the option to restrict the visibility of the Talk Page, I had to put the above communication here. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia values transparency; this is part of Jimmy Wales' dream, and ours too. But if you want privacy instead, you certainly have a choice, you can e-mail Nabla. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You regret that you deleted History2007's post. But WP is 100% transparent so we know what he posted:

Stop reverting multiple editors now on Jesus, or be blocked. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is need for a block here, based on clear disregard for WP:Policy after multiple warnings. History2007 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a warning. But you said that his post was threatening and abusive. How is this threatening and abusive? You do not have to answer here, you can follow the reguylar channels for making a Wiki etiquette complaint and seek redress if you wish. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, what is the point in poking? Please stop.

Wikiglobaleditor, you're not helping (yourself) much either... And thanks for relying on me, but I'm here today, I may not be tomorrow, and surely will not be forever, nor I am any special.

Wikiglobaleditor, quite frankly your statements of friendship with Jimmy Walles are all but impressive. I could as well claim I'm friends with the Portuguese Prime-Minister. That is easy. I am not friends of the Portuguese Prime Minister (I bet I am one degree away, not hard has *he* knows lots of people...). Right now I can not be sure if you are a friend of JW or not, so allow me to doubt it, but ultimately I don't care. What I care is, can you help build the encyclopaedia? What do you plan to do while editing WP? Unfortunately there was some... noise... - it is a sad common practice on the net, not specifically WP - noise that hid out the many good advices presented. In such a large bunch of people likely there will be someone that unnerves you, and that you will unnerve someone. What do you plan to do then? Note that it may be frustrating at times, but, say, the three-revert-rule is fundamental to have some peace and stability in here. It is probably the only policy that is clear cut: making 3 reverts gets you blocked. It is paramount that you understand, acknowledge, and then keep it if you want to stay around. So, what do you have to give to WP? - Nabla (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. and... oops... I just shared one of my experiences - and you do have full right to disbelieve that anyway. I will keep contributing to Wiki-Projects in whatever way I can in my 'limited capacity', as you know editing is not the only way around to be part of this great project. :) - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Looks like you do not wish to be unblocked, fine, your call. If you ever wish to, say so, please. - Nabla (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no.. its not like that... perhaps you didn't see the last section of my talk page, where I replied to Elen of the Roads explaining my arguments. If you agree with my point of view, you can unblock me any time you wish, but I shouldn't be restrained to put my references in the Talk:Jesus page and start a new discussion there. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unblocking your account. Note that it does not mean I do support (or not) any of your edits or sources on the article Jesus; nor I think Elen of the Roads as anything to be ashamed of. It simply menas that I think the extension from 72 hours to indef was hasty; that the whole thing was too bitey; and that you had some mostly fine edits outside the Jesus article over the previous months. I also note that Elen of the Roads is not against this (thank you). I hope you may enjoy it here, Wikiglobaleditor. I do not see any reason for you to restrain from editing wherever you feel like it, as long as you keep policy and guidelines in mind, Elen highlighted a few below, for myself I only remind you that the 3 revert rule is fundamental for WP's existence (or it would be impossible to edit) even if sometimes it feels like 'we lose' a dispute, and that is a clear rule, whose breach leads to a almost sure block. - Nabla (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we resolve this?

I would like to think that we can resolve this. Can we take a second look at what happened? I believe it was your first attempt at a major content edit, and it may be that the whole thing is down to a mismatch of expectations, and - to be fair - a misunderstanding of some policy on your part, and some unhelpful phrasing on mine.

I think it's fair to say that you misunderstood the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and believed that you were in the right in continuing to add the disputed information and reference, because you believe it was verifiable. Although there was some discussion on the talkpage of the article, you continued to add the information, and breached the three revert rule - which is there to prevent chaos. You tried reporting History2007 to WP:AIV but what he was doing was not vandalism. You also tried to request page protection, but all that did was highlight that you were edit warring. A better course would have been to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and had a discussion about your sources. Unfortunately, you gave the impression that you were crusading for the truth, which often indicates a problematic editor.

Would you - having read the policies quoted above - agree with that summary? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If for the sake of argument lets presume that the first 72 hours block was somewhat justified, but you should be ashamed for your hasty decision (may be subdued by your known editors) for the indef block. If you don't feel ashamed for the indef block and for restraining me to put my references in the Talk:Jesus page - then let it be like this, I'll deal it some other time in some other way. -- Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not helping

If User:Simon5761 continues to add unsourced material and advertising, and edit war to keep it in the article, he's going to end up blocked for longer next time. Advising him to ignore the administrators is just about the worst thing you could do for him. Bear in mind WP:BURDEN - the responsibility for sourcing information lies with the person who wants to add it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not always the case Elen, (may be I shouldn't have put that in his talk page), but "Sun rises in the east" - doesn't require a citation, same is true for personality like Jagjit Singh who has immense fan-following throughout that Indian subcontinent. Just Google with his name and you'll find thousands of references, and yes, many of them complies to WP:RS - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the case whenever another editor has challenged the claim'. Even if it were "The sun rises in the east" it would require a reference to be included if another editor challenged it and removed it. It is never ok to editwar to insert any claim, sourced or unsourced no matter how commonsensical it might be. It is always the burden of the person who adds material to supply those sources when challenged to do so. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we give him some time to add it, blocking is never a way to encourage a contributor, better to discuss it in the talk pages. BTW.. if "The sun rises in the east" was challenged - what reference shall we provide???? is there any ?? - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All about the sun's motion --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elen, have you ever read your reference at all? its about the sun's apparent motions across the sky as we see from earth - which is called the phenomenon of Analemma. It does not claim that "sun rises in the east", nor it tells anything even related to that. No one of this planet can prove (or can give any citation) that "sun rises in the east" - because its an "an axiomatic truth". Hope now its clear to you ! - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's make this slightly clearer, since you don't seem to be getting it at all. ...created a landmark in the punjabi music and will forever remain popular. His soulful singing of "Asa Tan Joban Rute Marna" ( I am going to die in the season of youth) justified the emotion with which the poet wrote... which is one of the statements that User:Simon5761 was attempting to edit war into the article, is not axiomatic, even if everyone in India agrees with it. ...would remain his magnum opus for the punjabi diaspora... ...He would sing all the songs with the simple note and emotional touch in it and put across the wording in such a manner as if the poet himself is singing it.... His melodious voice and [[Shiv Kumar Batalvi's]] poetry would just rightly fit in... India's current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur are known to be his avid admirers. and ...India's most prolific live performer ever... are also all statements that require a source if they are to remain in the article. By advising the editor to ignore this advice, you are increasing the likelihood that he will make further editing violations, which may result in him being blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't advice him to "ignore" your suggestions, see I am the first one who told you to convince him regarding the 'years active' issue. I agree there is a touch of little bit fancruft in his edit, but the information is NOT totally wrong. Just by removing few of his words can make it absolutely encyclopedic - rather than completely reverting his edits or Blocking him... e.g. if these words can be removed like: "will forever remain popular.", "put across the wording in such a manner as if the poet himself is singing it", "His melodious voice and Shiv Kumar Batalvi poetry would just rightly fit in" (which are fancruft - I agree) - I think there is no problem in his edits. You could have pinpoint these problems of his edits to him - that'd surely help him more than blocking him. Yes, it is unencyclopedic to write "Singh is India's most prolific live performer ever" - but no doubt that he is one of the most prolific live performers ever. And I don't think Simon5761 is that much stubborn, I noted that he listened to my advice regarding the changes in 'years active' issue (which you were agree with him)! Why won't he listen to you all - I just cant understand. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Wikiglobaleditor! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)