Jump to content

User talk:134.161.241.176

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DJ Clayworth (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 21 March 2006 (→3RR again, again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

-- admin blocked the user attempting to work with admins and remove bias/simple vandalism rather than the user pushing POV and refusing to discuss his edits


You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screw you. take a look at the changes i made. I was removing that codex assapticus's bias, and got banned... did he get banned as well?

Animal Liberation Front

Please stop changing the word 'removed' to 'stole' on the Animal Liberation Front article. There has been extensive debate on the issue and community consensus decided it should remain as 'removed' in order to preserve the NPOV stance of the article. If you would like to discuss it, please go to the talk page. Thanks -Localzuk (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary>concensus, just as fact>concenus. THe world never was flat, you know.

Three-revert rule again

You have again been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Sermon on the Mount and The Last Supper. As no other users have violated the rule to this point on either of those pages, they have not been blocked. Please make an effort to discuss your changes in the future or further action may become necessary. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


YAY BIAS! once again proving wikipedia is a joke! I HAVE been trying to discuss the changes, but codex refuses to discuss anythign and then reports me. great.

oh and i don't see more than 3 reverts today, let alone 3 reverts that don't constitute more than fixing simple vandalism. Since Codex is unwilling to discuss his changes, I am not doing anything more than fixing his vandalism. Grow up.

  • Repeatedly insisting that only your POV version is allowed and refusing to discuss the changes (i.e. Codex's behavior) would be vandalism. Since you is not discussing the content, there cannot be any sort of meaningfull discussion. Regardless of that, when he DOES discuss these changes, he refuses to listen to reason and insists his argument involving him being too stupid to use a dictionary is a valid reason to refuse the categorization... additionally, he likes to slow down progress by insisting that the exact same argument be held on EVERY PAGE that gets categorized. He ignores the fact that every other major religion has this very same categorization scheme in order to support his own pov.

You don't get to define Wikipedia policy on vandalism. Edits you don't like are not vandalism. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category talk:Christian mythology

Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 19:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how are these applicable? (posted by User:134.161.241.176)

They are applicable because of the comments you made about Codex on the talk page, which I deleted and which you re-added later (an acceptable version that time, which is fine). Your best bet is to try and gain a consensus for inclusion of these articles in the "mythology" categories prior to simply adding them. There has been much debate in the last few months / year regarding the apporopriateness of these categories and what ought to be in them; every editor seems to have his/her own opinion! You might save yourself a lot of grief if you try and gain a consensus before placing some of these articles in those categories. KHM03 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is concensus ont he abrahamic mythology page to place articles in the appropriate sub categories... which is why Codex refuses to comment on that page -- or discuss anywhere! 134.161.241.176 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exists on other articles' talk pages isn't entirely relevant; if you want Tower of Babel (for instance) in the Abrahamic mythology category (a move I personally don't have a problem with), you need to gain a consensus on the Tower of Babel talk page. Otherwise, you don't have a consensus. KHM03 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, is that n the past, on EACH "contested" page, Codex throws the SAME arguments, and refuses to listen to the other side... such as "it is insulting to call any story about a religion a myth -- even if it IS an accurate category" -- ignoring the fact that every other major religion has the mythology category. He is just wasting time and creating opposition to editing using unfounded, irrelevent arguments simply to bully his way around. As you can see he is no longer even TRYING to debate any more, regardless of the fact that I am making every attempt! 134.161.241.176 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, your best bet is to make your case on the article talk pages. If no one responds, then you've got a case. if you're able to build a consensus, then great. If not, then at least you'd have tried (and can perhaps try again later). Start the conversations and see what happens; i, for one, would support "Tower of Babel's" inclusion in the Abrahamic mythology category, and would say so on the talk page. KHM03 20:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again, again

You have again violated the three-revert rule at the following articles:

I cannot stress to you enough that it doesn't matter who's "right" in this dispute - the simple fact is that no one is committing vandalism here, and thus the rule applies. The fact that three distinct editors are reverting your changes suggests to me that a small consensus has developed. As this is your third violation and you show no signs of understanding the rule, I am blocking you for a longer period of time. When you come back, please do not immediately reinsert your changes on these articles. It may become necessary at that point to seek other remedies for resolving this dispute. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screw you. since they refused to discuss their changes, their changes are simple vandalism.134.161.241.176 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • so i get it! repeated changing of articles to your personal POV and refusing to discuss the changes is NOT vandalism!!!! awesome! i now know what to do! not try and discuss my changes!134.161.241.176 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not quite tactful, but it is correct. NPOV has nothing to do with vandalism. If you change a page to your preferred version 4 times in a 24-hour period, you are in violation of the three-revert rule. It's as simple as that. If you want to open up discussion of the page's content, you can open up a request for comment about that article when your block expires. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, so you can change an article an unlimited number of times as long as you are making it NPOV? so unblock me. How can you straightfacedly claim that refusing to call a myth a myth is NPOV? I am sorry, but i have made every effort to discuss the changes and they have YET to make a rebuttal to any of them. I have made every effort to keep the article NPOV and they have made every effort to bias them. Why is it ok to call buddhist, or hindi stories myths but not christian? NPOV means treating every religion the same. 134.161.241.176 22:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you can change an article an unlimited number of times. However, repeatedly performing the same edit, more than three times in a 24-hour period, is against the rules. I am not making any ruling on how valid either side is in the dispute, just on the fact that you have violated the rule. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry that you don't know the rules. The exception to the 3RR rule is in the case of correcting simple vandalism, and simple vandalism would describe the repeated changing of an article, and refusing to discuss said changes. Since I was more than willing to discuss the changes, and made that eminantly clear, and the other users would not, that makes their changes vandalism. It is only a content dispute if dialog between the parties is opened. 134.161.241.176 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block was imposed correctly. Please read WP:VAND to see what exactly simple vandalism is. If you have a dispute about content, please use the talk page or WP:RFC. Specfically, "simple vandalism would describe the repeated changing of an article, and refusing to discuss said changes" is false. Plain and simple. The 3RR specifically prohibits that behaviour on both your parts. Stifle 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Codex is blocked then? from the descriptiong of vandalism:Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. That is EXACTLY what he was doing! 134.161.241.176 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether biblical meterial belongs in any mythology category was debated at great length many months ago. The consensus was that it did not belong there. Please do not add those categories any more. Thank you. DJ Clayworth 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I suggest that when you are unblocked, you register with a username, rather than use the anonymous IP. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:134.161.241.176&oldid=44834242"