User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See also: User talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar


Looks like we've found a new topic to mentor, haven't we? I'll have to take a closer look at the page-history, but at this moment I suggest we pick up the content of this topic at Talk:Kalapani, territory#Deleted sources, and discuss the conduct here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you removed a large amount of text (quotes?) from Voltaire. I know nothing about Voltaire (except for the Ezourvedam), but I suggest the leave Voltaire aside for the moment, and focus on Kalapani, territory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced for long, unaccessible/unknown, unreferenced, google translated version of old french wiki versions, and so on... No one agreed on it, so had to be removed one day. Actually the Kalapani, territory has got numerous mentions. I had found few sources myself, but I thought I will be doing it someday. So probably now. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#1[edit]

Bladesmulti, YOU ARE NOT HELPING WIKIPEDIA, when you do this.[16] You are not an expert on Voltaire's view of Islam, Bladesmulti. You do not understand when Voltaire is speaking allegorically, as a way to attack the Catholics, and when he is giving his true position. Grammar is very difficult; you must seek help, when the grammar is tricky. Do you understand? WP:PRIMARY sources must be used with care. You are very anxious to help wikipedia. That is good. But wikipedia is not a religious battleground. That is bad. (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Been about 1 month+ Nothing has been sourced there, So i thought for a sec, that it can be reverted now. Though we talked about it previously on mentorship page, as well as talk page of Voltaire page itself. Whole 20,000 bytes of content was brought from french wikipedia, though it was never sourced, but included references to a dead link, a website that is on sale for 3 years. What can be done there? You can tell me. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let us go point by point.
  • B. Been about 1 month+
74. Nothing has happened for over a month.
You are wrong. It has been 16 days.[17] WP:DEADLINE applies, what is your hurry? (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1 month in the sense, that it was brought there,24th January. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, was the article-talkpage conversation a month old, or not? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

74. Judith has provided no sources.
You are wrong. You deleted the sources.[18] (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
NEW ARGUMENT#2, WP:UNDUE, WHO CARES ABOUT WP:SECONDARY. It is probably Undue to write what others think about his views, when we are talking about his views, Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
NEW ARGUMENT#3, WP:V, MISREPRESENTED SOURCE. but still even if it is not, the first quote by Pierre Milza is misrepresented. He writes in 265 that "It is to denounce the fraud and crimes of the founder of Islam" about play. Some other quotes are misrepresented too. For example, "(the theist) believes that religion consists" which is actually something else, see [19]
NEW ARGUMENT#4, WP:REDUNDANT, REPETITIOUS PROSE. "full of praise for Muslim civilization and for Islam as a rule of life" seems to be correct, but it is repeated on previous paragraph "After later having judged that he had made..." Same with last paragraph of the section. So Repeated material can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
NEW ARGUMENT#5, WP:SFOD, BLADESMULTI CANNOT BE OUT-ARGUED. And rest of the sources can be replaced with better ones. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, did you delete sources, and claim that WP:BURDEN was the reason, or not? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, but it wasn't a perfect move, neither it was half great. Thanks for making me realize. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • B. So i thought for a sec, that it can be reverted now.
74. Therefore, I thought for a second that I could revert the Islam-section, back to what it looked like during most of 2013.[20]
You are wrong, you shouldn't have reverted, because there are sources, and there is no deadline. (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, how many seconds did you think, before you made up a bunch of new arguments, and pretended not to hear that your WP:BURDEN argument was wrong? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. Though we talked about it previously on mentorship page, as well as talk page of Voltaire page itself.
74. We talked about Voltaire at User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit.231_Talk:Voltaire.23Islam, and I also talked with Itsmejudith on Talk:Voltaire#On Section, Islam.
You are correct, you and I talked about Voltaire. You are also correct, that you and Judith talked about Voltaire. Here is what Judith told you: "No, that would ignore the scholarship...." Here is what I told you: "I am only interested in one thing, right now. This one thing must happen first in the mentorship. Bladesmulti must learn grammar. That is why there is trouble with sources." You did not listen to Judith; you deleted her sources. You did not listen to me: you kept trying to work on Voltaire, even though you don't actually understand the sources.
  You must learn grammar FIRST, if you want to understand sources (or talkpages). *I* understand the sources; the revert you made was wrong. I understand the talkpages: Judith told you that you did not understand the scholars. But Bladesmulti, I cannot help *you* understand the sources, and the talkpages, unless you start learning grammar. You are not spending your time working on grammar. You forgot grammar lesson five: advice and advise are different. You are "working" on Voltaire: which means, deleting sources. Look at the comment Doug made, when he restored the sources. (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be unaware, but no one agreed with the current version on talk pages either, and everyone, including judith had agreed to clean up. But it has been delayed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, you ARE unaware, that Judith was right, and you were wrong. You are the only one who disagreed with Judith, in this section: Talk:Voltaire#On Section, Islam.
  That is not a case where "no one agreed with the current version" in mainspace. That is a case where you made a proposal, and there was no consensus to implement your proposal. But you did not listen: you deleted the sources in mainspace anyways. You did it wrong. Read what Xoloz said about consensus again, and then come back to this part of the mentorship-page. Did you get consensus for your change to Voltaire, where you deleted sources? Or did you just get in a hurry, because the discussion was "too old" in your view, since it got stalled a couple of weeks ago? Then, did you decide to do what you wanted, without any consensus whatsoever? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. Whole 20,000 bytes of content was brought from french wikipedia,
74. Itsmejudith translated about 20 kilobytes of content from the French Wikipedia's article fr:Voltaire into English, and put that into Voltaire.
Yes, that is mostly true, although some of the content you deleted was by Inayity (also, Hafspajen with help from Arildnordby modified the sentence about Islam having a clergy... that work was deleted in your revert too, Bladesmulti). (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, you did not respond to this point. Do you think Judith did a good thing? Do you think it is legal to bring content from frWiki? Do you think, that since the content was copied from frWiki, that the only source is frWiki? Do you think the refs from frWiki are unreliable, because they are from frWiki? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't helped at all, because everything started with the discovery of a tumblr(Unreliable ref)'s link. It is not actually wrong to bring content from other wikipedias, in fact it is recommended, but Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • B. though it was never sourced, but included references to a dead link, a website that is on sale for 3 years.
74. That new content was never sourced to my satisfaction; some of the the references were to a dead link (a website that has been on sale for 3 years now).
You are wrong. To put it more strongly, you are very very very very VERY wrong. Here is the list of sources: Voltaire(Fanatisme) 1741/1875, Voltaire(Cideville) 1739/1792, Milza 2007, Voltaire(Prussia#2) 1742, Voltaire(Missy) 1743/1856, Pomeau(temps) YYYY, 2*Voltaire(Alcoran) 1748/2008, 3*Pomeau(religion) 1995, Voltaire(Denis) 1751/1792, 4*Voltaire(Moeurs) 1756/1875, 2*Moland(Critique) 1760/1875, Moland(Remarques) 1763/1875, Voltaire(Dictionnaire) 17xx, Nonnotte(erreurs) 1770, Voltaire(Preface) 1754/1875, Neaimi(Lumieres) 2003, Venturino(Imposteur) 2000, Cruysse 2005, Pomeau(Fayard) 1995, Voltaire(Prussia#1) 1740/1869, Volaire(Benedict) 1745, Todd YYYY (, Gunny 1996, Sardar YYYY (, Elmarsafy 2009.
  Possibly, there are a few other sources that I missed. Some of the sources are repeats, such as Pomeau(religion) and Pomeau(Fayard), which I believe are actually the same source. You didn't delete ALL those sources: you did delete most of them, though. How can you think that WP:BURDEN applies? (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, and majority of sources are redirecting to a fansite, which is on sale for 3 years+ now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, you said the section you deleted "was never sourced". Is that a true statement? Or is that a false statement? (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Few sources lacking page numbers. Completely messed, but I have no worries giving it more time, I am not saying that it will be slashed, but better sources can be added. And repeated text or Undue can be removed. We will see it after weeks or month. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • B. What can be done there? You can tell me.
74. What is the correct way to make progress on Voltaire? Please tell me.
The answer is pretty simple, Bladesmulti. If you want to make progress on the article about Voltaire, you have to learn more English. Right now, you do not understand what Judith is saying on the talkpage. Right now, you do not understand what Pomeau is saying (one of the foremost experts on Voltaire). Right now, you do not understand what Milza, Neaimi, Venturino, and all the other secondary sources are saying. Therefore, until you understand English better, progress will be hard.
  Here is what you should do. Stop worrying about content-disputes, like Voltaire, Ezourvedam, and Adimo. Stop worrying about religion, like Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and Christianity. Stop worrying about Sati, caste-systems, Kalapani, Nepal, Pakistan, and Africa. You need to focus on one thing: grammar.
  Listen to Corinne. Listen to JJ. Go back, and read over the advice that Arildnordby and Hafspajen gave you. Go back, and listen to Tryptofish. Go back, and listen to Kevin Gorman. Stop fighting in mainspace and on article-talkpages. You do not have to listen. But wikipedia have the five pillars, and you are not following them, the way you are behaving now. (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I work on grammar, but I don't really worry about the pages at this moment, like you seems to be thinking. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you are correct, that I think you should worry about grammar, and stop fighting in mainspace. But you also have to have the right attitude: if you fight with people, and ignore what they say, you cannot be a wikipedian, even if you have perfect English. Look at Corinne, her English is wonderful. But more importantly, her attitude is wonderful.

  Look at this example, where Corinne made a mistake. User_talk:CorinneSD#Please_do_not_edit_other_people_comments_on_talk_pages Corinne was helping fix grammar-errors. That is good. But she was fixing them on a talkpage, where they aren't as important, as long as people understand what is being said. So another person asked Corinne not to mess with grammar on talkpages. Corinne said she was sorry. Corinne said she would not make the same mistake again. That is a good attitude. That is a good wikipedian. She is trying hard to help wikipedia! CorinneSD, did you remember this wikiquette lesson? Will you forget it, after 16 days, and decide to fix "the bahd grammahrz on taklpages" even though somebody told you about the WP:TALKPAGE rules?
  Bladesmulti, you have a problem which is 75% grammar. You do not understand complex English very well: for example, you do not understand Milza. But you also have a problem which is 25% attitude. You are always in a big hurry, to move to the next things, so you refuse to admit that you are wrong, and that Judith is right. You refuse to work on grammar, you would rather fight Judith. Will you fix your attitude problem, Bladesmulti? Grammar is hard to teach, but Corinne can do it. However, just like Doug says, attitude is almost impossible to teach, unless the student is willing. (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I disagree with these 2 things. First, Judith had created that mess, just like before, blanking pages with "copyright violation" tags.
Second, Milza is not representing anything like it has been claimed. You can show me the actual source if you think I am wrong. And once again, why it is necessary to add anyone's quote in the section that is about one person? WP:DUE applies here. Rather we can add Voltaire's own words. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Bladesmulti, 74 has done a fantastic job of breaking down your last edit and comments, first showing you a better and more complete way to express your ideas, then explaining what you did and should have done, etc. I would just like to add that another way to improve your English is to read more. It might be worthwhile taking some time off from WP and borrowing some books from the library, an assortment of fiction, non-fiction and biography, and reading them. As you read, pay attention to how words are arranged to form sentences, and make lists of unfamiliar words and look them up. Write down the page number in the book where you found the word so that when you look up the word and see multiple definitions, you can locate the one definition that applies in that context. That way, you will learn the various meanings of words and see how they are used. If you don't want to take time off from WP, then perhaps you can spend a little less time on editing and a little more time on reading books. Read the great writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Read novels, historical novels, mysteries, short stories, adventure stories, science fiction, etc. Read non-fiction in subjects that interest you. Read essays. The more you read, the better your English and your writing will become. Then, understanding sources, other editors' comments, and WP articles will be easier, and your comments will be more easily understood. Your mentors, of course, will be glad to continue working with you.CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't have any competence in teaching English to anyone, such as Corinn and 74, I have noticed that Bladesmulti often uses some slang/jargon that might be common on some forum boards, but by no means are so when we are tryig to discuss academic sources. The latest example was B's use of "I'm not in awe". I guess most of us understood that along the line "I'm not terribly impressed", whether that was B's intent behind his "not in awe", is extremely difficult to find out. So, however this progresses, it would be of real benefit to B to read more comprehensive, standard sources, and develop the English he wants to communicate in, in tune with that, rather than resorting to obscure, easily misunderstood slang.Arildnordby (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Arildnordby. Good point, Arildnordby. I'd like to add that I recommend using a college level monolingual English dictionary (all English), either a book dictionary or a good on-line dictionary such as Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You will not only see all the definitions of each word but also examples of how the word is used in a sentence. You will also see the various prepositions (such as "with" and "to") and other constructions that normally follow the word. CorinneSD (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Cultural digression The "old system" (i.e when I grew up in the 80s) where our principal source for being taught English was the carefully thought out, and directed school curriculum helped us foreigners to learn a sort of stilted, Queen's English version (and native English speakers were probably humoured by that). Nowadays, however, it is the autodidactic patchwork principle we see in action, so that native speakers will meet almost stunningly strange (ab)uses of their language by foreigners who have learnt themselves an English of sorts.Arildnordby (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying B didn't go to school. But, when I was in the age range 11-16, I would say 80-90% of what I was exposed to of English was of a school-directed kind, but for a youngster today, what is the percentage of exposure to English from their schools? I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage is in the 30-40 range (there are so many venues for English-speaking today that didn't exist in the 80s!). And, it shows, in how the English they develop actually looks like.Arildnordby (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and many young people today text back and forth and use instant messaging, both of which lend themselves to writing in short, choppy, fragmented sentences. Does that bring anyone to mind?CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Having worked as a teacher (not in English!) previously for some years, I could give you some hundred names that come to mind! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

mentorship proposal: new limit, new focus[edit]

Edits so far for UTC_day Feb 26th (mentorship-pages not shown).

  • 09:49, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+117)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (→‎Further reading) (current) continuing an edit-war
  • 09:46, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-26)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (current) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
  • 09:32, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (List of territorial disputes) continuing an edit-war
  • 09:30, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+329)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (PM) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
  • 09:22, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+337)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (→‎Page move: new section) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
  • 09:13, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+696)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (add bibliographies) continuing an edit-war
  • 09:04, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+447)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (add source) continuing an edit-war
  • 09:00, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+411)‎ . . Talk:Kalapani, territory ‎ (multiple sources) (current)
  • 08:16, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . Voltaire ‎ (per request) (current)
  • 08:13, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-19,903)‎ . . Voltaire ‎ (WP:Burden and no improvement for 1 month+) continuing an edit-war
  • 08:08, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . Padamji Ginwala ‎ (spacing)


  • Bladesmulti is not able to stay under the 5-edit-per-day limitation.
  • This is because, I believe, Bladesmult is preoccupied with mainspace. See WP:The_Truth.
  • Bladesmulti is concentrating on renewing "old" content-disputes (Kalapani from 20th Dec && Voltaire from a couple weeks ago).
  • Bladesmulti, I strongly believe, needs to concentrate fully on learning-not-to-fight. See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.


  • Bladesmulti should voluntarily stay at 0-edits-per-day outside mentorship-pages, for 2 weeks. (Or, if Joshua && Corinne prefer, 1-edit-per-day.)
  • Bladesmulti should pick one small topic-area, which is not controversial, to work on.
  • Mentors can veto the topic, if it is unacceptable.

CorinneSD, Joshua Jonathan, is this acceptable? The two-week-clock will start if co-mentors agree. (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You had proposed 5 edits yes, But I accidentally did more than 4 in a single talk page. So my bad there. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No mainspace, one topic, not caste-system. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think my own, Creation narratives would be the best one, for 1 week. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Too broad. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Abel Bergaigne? It is on my draft. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Just in case you pick Abel Bergaigne (where B has made a good start!), be sure to access this essay by professor of religion Bruce Lincoln, who assesses Bergaigne's contributions, and the line of historians he belongs to, pages 13-32 here. The best of luck!Arildnordby (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes it fair topic, as per 74. Good for a week. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism[edit]

Joshua_Jonathan (and possibly Arildnordby), can you comment on this deletion please? [21] Sorry, more caste-system stuff, it looks like. (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

[22], Joshua is aware about it. He has agreed about the accuracy of article. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#2[edit]

Bladesmulti, who requested this change? [23] (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, this question is still open. You said that this edit was requested. Who requested it? (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
[24] Even though I had expanded and sourced. User is correct here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
So, even though the edit-request was declined by another editor, you decided to make the edit anyways. Here was the decline-reason. "Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration...." Did you read the decline-reason? If not, why not? Were you in too much of a hurry?
  If you did read the reason, why did you fail to first establish consensus for this change, on the article-talkpage? Technical_13 was saying that the change seemed potentially controversial. But you did not pay attention to Techical_13. Why not? (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13 is basically uninvolved editor. It is quiet obvious, whoever reviews the edit request, they would likely look for a consensus. Friedrich nietzsche is not defending Voltaire, when he was calling Thomas a "muddlehead". So it cannot be slashed, but added to reference/note. I did it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#1[edit]

Here is the edit under discussion, which is different from edit#2 above.[25] (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(( Bladesmulti has moved most of this content to a mentorship-subpage.[26] (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ))

I have reverted this. It is this sort of behavior that led to the site ban proposal, and suggests that the mentorship, despite all the hard work of the mentors, is failing. The best mentorship depends upon the goodwill and willingness to cooperate of the editor being mentored, and its failure should not be seen as a failure of the mentors. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I can say that if I was logged into my admin account right now, I would be fully-prepared to issue a block, based on the failure of Blades to follow the restrictions laid out. Those restrictions were what prevented an indef to begin with ES&L 14:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the Islam-content back into Voltaire, Doug. I will note that Bladesmulti reverted that Islam-section back to the 2013 version of the article (which was before Bladesmulti showed up at the Voltaire article), rather than just reverting portions Bladesmulti personally disagreed with. So there is a glimmer of hope.  :-)   The problem is not that Bladesmulti is trying to win a content-dispute, methinks, but simply that Bladesmulti literally doesn't understand the new sources.
  I still think there is a bit of juice left in the voluntary mentorship. Especially if Bladesmulti will voluntarily stop editing outside the mentorship pages for a couple weeks, and concentrate on learning grammar (reading... and writing... but especially willingness to admit failure to grok). That said, if the voluntary focus does not work, then we'll switch to the involuntary focus... and in any case, if another couple-three weeks go by without noticeable progress, then we'll have to call it a day.
  Should we get to April without traction, rather than a site-ban, I might suggest a tailored scheme... narrow throttling. Specifically, Bladesmulti is mostly interested in adding content, and is good at finding sources, and even formatting citation-templates. Writing summary-sentences, and more importantly, evaluating source-quality, is where Bladesmulti has the biggest problems (the stubborn attitude is an exacerbation... but is secondary). Therefore, it might make sense to have a sort of site-wide "Bright Line Rule" for Bladesmulti... based on WP:GRAMMAR rather than based on WP:COI. Bladesmulti can suggest changes on article-talkpages, and use WP:ERQ or WP:TEAHOUSE if necessary. However, to keep Bladesmulti's wikithuisasm in check, methinks we would need to specify no more than one edit per article-talkpage per day. This would permit Bladesmulti to work on a bunch of topics simultaneously, as he loves to do, and provide a bunch of sources, which he is good at, but without risking misunderstood-source-material being stuck into (or deleted from) any portion of mainspace.
  Anyways, I'm not suggesting this bright-line-throttle today, though, because I still think that Bladesmulti may yet listen to Corinne on grammar, and JJ on sourcing. If we end up at AN/I again in a few weeks, the alternative to the bright-line-throttle would be a site ban of several years duration, at least 2 years, so that Bladesmulti could spend some time learning English more thoroughly. Bladesmulti is a good-faith contributor; this is 75% grammar-barrier, and 25% stubborn attitude. (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You are doing good work with him, but I still think that he doesn't know enough to judge what is a reliable sources - which is often not easy, of course. Maybe some work on that would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
We have been working on that.  :-)   But to little avail, so far. JJ has been heroically handling most of the sourcing, and Arildnordby has helped with that also. They are doing good work, but for it to help, Bladesmulti must listen.
  Judging what is WP:RS and what is not is always difficult, especially in Bladesmulti's favorite area of religious topics; Ezourvedam tricked Voltaire in the 1760s/1770s, and then tricked Bladesmulti in the 2010s. Methinks the key is for Bladesmulti to learn to *ask* for the opinions of native speakers, and then, instead of fighting with them about it, learn to accept what they say. Bladesmulti is always free to ask multiple people, on the article-talkpage, on the RSN, at WP:TEAHOUSE, or one of the co-mentors. And with time, and experience in English, at some point Bladesmulti will be able to judge the reliable sources with the best of them.
  At the moment, though, Bladesmulti will need help with sourcing, no question about it. More importantly, there is an attitude problem to overcome: Bladesmulti doesn't like asking and waiting, instead, Bladesmulti likes rushing and fighting. Wikipedia isn't for fighting, there are plenty of other websites where that is the norm. Wikipedia is for careful thinking and analysis. (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You sure? It happens 1/4 times, I would propose change on talk page first, then wait until there is agreement. Though sometimes information is so uncontroversial and non-conflicting that one would edit the main page. Although I am not denying, but consider improving. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I am on mentorship+grammar for week+ since today.
Site ban was proposed only because of the allegation regarding sock puppet(which included you as well) and allegation about source misrepresentation on a single page. Though none of the charges were proved, they were incorrect. I know mistakes happen from me, but I would rather avoid than committing again. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • B. No worries, I am on mentorship+grammar for week+ since today.
74. Please do not be worried, folks. I am focusing on my mentorship and my grammar, for the next couple weeks, starting today.
Okay, thanks. Until 2014-03-13 at 23:59 UTC, you are on zero-edits-per-day, except for unlimited mentorship-edits. Only make edits to your mentorship-pages, which means, your userpages, and my user-talkpage. If you need JJ or Corinne, you can write a question on your own talkpage, and ping them with Joshua_Jonathan and CorinneSD. (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. Site ban was proposed only because of the allegation regarding sock puppet(which included you as well)
74. The site ban was only proposed, first of all, because of the sock-puppet allegation. (74, you were accused of being a Bladesmulti sock, remember?)
(( yes, I remember.  ;-)   see reply below )) (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. and allegation about source misrepresentation on a single page.
74. Second of all, there was an allegation about me misrepresenting a source, on a single article.
(( are you sure it was just one source, on just one article? see reply below )) (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. Though none of the charges were proved, they were incorrect.
74. None of the charges were proven; they were all incorrect.
  Bladesmulti, you are wrong about the ban-proposal from January 26th. It was proposed because you make people angry. You reply without reading. You read without understanding. You delete sources. You insert sources that you don't fully understand. You argue argue argue, but you do not listen listen listen. The ban proposal on January 26th was not because you make a mistake, every once in a while.
  It was because you fight. It was because you don't understand grammar well enough. If there is another ban-proposal, in March, it will be for the same problem: that you don't understand grammar well enough, but you still fight anyways. Wikipedia is not for fighting. Wikipedia is for summarizing knowledge, into English, from sources. You can help with that, iff you will learn to listen. (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • B. I know mistakes happen from me, but I would rather avoid than committing again.
74. I know I make mistakes sometimes, but I try to learn from my mistakes, and avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
  It is okay that your English is not perfect. English is hard! Look at how hard Arildnordby has to work, to learn English and Norwegian. Look at how hard Hafspajen had to work, to learn English and Swedish. Look at how hard Judith had to work, to learn English and French.
Judith's first language is english. Right now JJ is learning english, though his native is Dutch. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  Bladesmulti, you have to improve your English, if you want to help on English Wikipedia, like those editors help. That means, you have to practice re-writing and summarizing. Practice is the key. Even if you never get good enough to fully understand the sources, you still have to improve somewhat, so that you can understand talkpage-discussions. Mistakes will still happen; but mistakes that turn into fights, are the real problem here. (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Very nice, fully agree with what you said. There are probably better ways for presenting views. So that they wouldn't turn into fight. It can be largely avoided, I have overcome that sometimes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, I'm glad you fully agree. But do you fully understand? Please summarize the main points, that you have learned, just like you did for the message from Xoloz. (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Concerning misrepresntation of sources. The Doniger attribution was flawed; the year edition, and page you quoted was totally wrong. But, your quote was correct for another edition of Doniger for that very page! Basically, B, in a heated situation where you on several accounts refused to listen to solid arguments, and somebody re-checks your quote and finds it fallacious (note: I do NOT preclude the possibility that he was the one who happened to use the wrong yearly edition here, rather than you, but the misrepresentation quarrel is based on using two different Doniger editions!), bad faith towards you is easily generated. Be careful about sources, and as long as you struggle with grammar limit yourself to direct online sources so that others might check if your good faith edit also is a "good understanding" of sourceArildnordby (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You see, the allegation was completely like "one source doesn't support, I haven't checked other 2 sources". So who's fault it will be? Then also some edits like [27], [28].. But they are often self reverted[29], [30]. Although, you are also correct about the availability of sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
74. Points that you have noted as part of the discussion that I should not argue without listening the whole thing, and such problem can be solved only if I concentrate on whole thing, that is related to sources, comments, and actual issue. Also that it is very important to keep it least conflicting, practicing will make it better. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)