User talk:Giovanni33

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Giovanni33! And thanks for fixing the typo over on the Scientology article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Giovanni33, and have fun! Ombudsman 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

violation

Please review WP:SOCK...thanks. KHM03 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please look at WP:CON. Thanks...KHM03 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni33. I'm a little concerned that you seemed to acknowledge here that you are the same as 64.121.40.153 and that he seemed to be denying it here. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with forgetting to log on occasionally, or even deliberately not logging on if you're at a strange computer and in a hurry. But since you are making a lot of reverts, and we have a policy on that, and since Belinda claims on the Christianity talk page that five editors at least agree with your version, it's important to know if you are both accounts or only one. Could you please clarify? (And if you are 64.121.40.153, could you try to log on when posting.) Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. My IP address is [[User:64.121.40.153|. I never denied otherwise. I have always had the same IP address--one and only. Any other IP address would not be me since I've never used a different PC to edit here. I have already agreed to log in (the times my IP address shows instead of my name is due to not being log on).

I do not know why I seem to have been accused of having more than one account. A diversionary tactic, that is a sign of desperation? hehe I looked at your links and I only see that I said the same things Im saying here: that I only have one account and one IP address. Not loggin in does not mean I have two accounts, since its the same IP address, right? KHM03 lumped me together with another user, Belinda. I denied that I was someone else (any IP address other than 64.121.40.153), stating I have only one account. How is this possibly interpreted as a denial that my own IP address is mine? The other user I was being lumped with has a different IP address. Can you clarify what about this needs clarification since I've already stated this? Giovanni33 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni33 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni. Thanks for your reply. No, there was no accusation, just a question, and since you've clarified, nothing else needs clarification. The problem was that you were doing a lot of reverts (well, I know I was too!) but you were making some as Giovanni33 and some as 64.121.40.153. As you know, if you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period (and partial reverts count), you can be blocked from editing by an administrator. And the three reverts are considered an absolute limit, not an entitlement. If you split the reverts between your IP address and your username, you can still be blocked. Now, since Belinda was claiming that at least five editors agreed with your version, it seemed important to establish how many of you there are. I never thought it was likely that you were Belinda (though in the case of new editors sharing the same views, we don't generally rule out the possibility); nor do I imply that you're doing anything dishonest in using your username for some edits and your IP address for others. I do ask you to log in as much as possible, though, since it's confusing for people who read the talk page or who check the article history to find out who wanted what. It's natural when a lot of new users and IP addresses suddenly appear, and favour the same versions of the article, that those who've been around longer would wonder. Also, 38.114.145.148 signed on the talk page as Belinda, and shortly afterwards, the new editor BelindaGong appeared. So I wonder if that's one of the "five" who approved your version, or two? Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize for asking that question. I have just seen this, which I missed earlier. There have been so many posts to that page today, that I couldn't keep track of all of them. AnnH ^(talk) 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the historical chart on Christianity; it may have gotten inadvertently deleted at one point...but there is no complaint from me on that one. KHM03 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked or not blocked?

It appears I have been blocked from making any further edits. This was right after I made some edits to addressing points in the talk page in goodwill on my part, not to do any reverts (except the Historical Chart, which no one disputs). Yet, looks like I have been blocked as a result anyway. Giovanni33 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't block you. Nor did I ask another administrator to do so. I hate blocking newcomers, unless they're vandals. Sorry to hear you can't edit, although 1) if you were blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post to my talk page, and 2) there's no record of your name or your IP on the block logs. (They get filled in automatically, when an administrator blocks someone, so it's not as if someone blocked you and forgot to report it. See here and here for block logs relevant to you. They're both empty. When I got your message I thought perhaps the Christianity article had been protected while I was having dinner, but it wasn't. I suggest you try again shortly. If you like to post here to your talk page (the only page you can edit while blocked, although I stress again that you're not blocked) what makes you think you've been blocked, I'll look into it for you. By the way, I note that you made about ten reverts or partial reverts in the space of 24 hours, so you could have been blocked, even though you weren't. I'll keep an eye on this page in case you respond. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that you haven't edited anything since. There's still absolutely no record of any block, so I think it must be that you're having computer problems. Anyway, I'll be around for a while, and I'll keep an eye on this page, in case you post anything on it. AnnH ^(talk) 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You've started contributing again. Everything okay? AnnH ^(talk) 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

When you can, please review the recent changes detailed here before changing/reverting. I've tried to address your concerns & incorporate some of your suggestions. I pray we are getting close to a consensus. KHM03 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

I also want to say good job and keep it up. Really, thank you for all your hard work and research in the articles you have edited. I do appreciate it and see that you really do work hard for a consensus and compromise depite the difficulties posed by those who contest inclusion of all your well sourced material. BelindaGong 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

Hi Giovanni. I have been following your discussions on the Christianity pages with interest. Whilst I think you are a little over enthusiastic when editing the main pages your explanations show you are doing this in good faith and are obviously putting in a lot of work. Keep it up as the article is benefiting from having to be more rigorous and precise. These are fringe ideas but as my husband was able to buy 3 books on Gnostic Christianity at the airport in New York it shows that they are gaining ground. For 2000 years the Christians have been able to write their own story so you're not going to change that in a few days on Wiki. Unfortunately questioning these things tends to polarize people into for or against camps, and once they think you are attacking the root of their faith they will be defensive. Literal interpretation is very important to Christianity, especially to Roman Catholics who trace their lineage right back to the disciples. Being from a protestant background myself these things are less important, especially as I see them squeezing out room for faith.

I don't think I've seen you mention Elaine Pagels as a source. I've just started reading "The Gnostic Gospels" by her and as she is a Professor of Religion at Princeton University I think she will pass even KHM03's definition of a scholar! The book is a study of the Nag Hammandi scrolls and seems to be echoing some of what you are saying. Good luck with the edits! SOPHIA 13:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BC AD

Saw your comment on KS's page - you're right, there is no standard...not even the "first user" standard. It's more of a "don't change without consensus". Guettarda 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I'm not sure that either is needed, but as it stands now AD is used in the first line and CE later on. The one thing that's not acceptable is a mixed system. Guettarda 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, Giovanni. It looks to me like the original dating system in the Early Christianity article was AD, so I think they'd be justified in keeping the article consistent with that, unless a consensus of editors decides that the other version would be more appropriate. I agree that there is no preferred Wikipedia dating system, but in this case, it looks like they were justified in their change. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding, or if you see any other inappropriate changes. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Giovanni, you have reverted SIX times on Christianity in the last 24 hours. Please understand — as I've told you before — that partial reverts count. Also, reverts with edit summaries about inserting something according to consensus on talk page also count. AnnH ^(talk) 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point you should be aware of is when people have a history of violating that rule, some admins actually block them (legally) if they "game the system" by making a fourth revert in, say, twenty-four hour and three minutes. I'm not talking about myself. I haven't ever blocked for 3RR so far, and I wouldn't do it with someone whose reverts are to an article I'm involved in. But I just thought you should be aware. AnnH ^(talk) 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV lecturing

Giovanni33, you wrote on Talk:Christianity,

I think that we can all benefit reviewing the Wiki policy on NPOV. I know we all think we know it, but in practice, I think many of us can slip back into non encylopedic mind frames.

And you followed that with what appeared to be a lengthy excerpt from WP:NPOV. (I didn't take the time to do a diff with the actual text, so I'm not completely sure.) Now, I think including yourself among that "we" as in "we all think we know it" is extremely arrogant of you, given that you've been editing Wikipedia for less than a month with this username. (If you've used other registered usernames, I'd be glad to hear it.) In your brief history, you have primarily engaged in edit warring to insert and highlight what you admit is a minority POV, have repeatedly made bigoted statements on related Talk pages. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2001, mostly religion related articles but not certainly not exclusively. While people have disagreed with my edits and I've disagreed with theirs, I don't recall ever violating the 3 revert rule, nor being accused of it. I have successfully collaborated with Jews, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics and Protestants, and on rare occasions even with fellow Eastern Orthodox Christians. The people you're insulting and reverting similarly have a history of having collaborated with editors with whom they disagree, and ultimately arriving at a mutually acceptable result. I know, I've argued with several of them myself. I normally do my best to assume good faith, but so far you've done little to make that easy for any of us.

You asked on Talk:Christianity what it took to be accepted as a fellow editor. Begin by not reverting edits out of hand, especially not in violation of the three revert rule. Next, try making some uncontroversial edits somewhere, anywhere. And while you're reading up on Wikipedia's policies, spend a little time with WP:CIVIL. You don't have to toe the party line to be accepted; plain old fashioned civility and collaboration will go a long way. Wesley 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I must beg to differ with you on several accounts, starting with your notion that asking that we all review the great ideals of NPOV is an act of arrogance, esp. when I felt such policies were not being followed. Asking us all to review it, including myself, was a way not to single out anyone, but to focus on working toward a common goal and within a working framework. I felt it did help to foster greater respect and cooperation, if but for a while. I'm surprised you think this is such a negative thing. But, I guess you take insult that a newbie such as myself would dare feel himself to be an editor on par with others as is suggested by using the inclusive word "we." hehe Sorry, no offense intended! I guess I'm not part of the club yet. My only defense here is that I'm still learning about the unspoken rules, which take longer to figure out (I read all the written ones).

About my admitting to the fact that I have a minority view. I confess to the crime! hehe Seriously is having a minority point of view a bad thing? I guess, though this will be construed as further "extreme arrogance" esp. when you hear that I've happy with it, and the progress I've made despite the conflict its generated. While I do think some conflict is necessary (the locomotive of all historical progress?), a lot of it was unnecessary too; maybe if I had introduced the NPOV lecture earlier on...? hehe The point of view as I've shown is commonly accepted in many related secular academic circles. That is, that Christianity was strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. I have provided many prominent scholars who are authorities within the relevant fields of study, who argue the stance. Even though I make my arguments aggressively and with passion, I do not think I've ever been uncivil (please give me an example so that I can reflect), and certainly I have never made bigoted statements. Pointing out actual bias is not bigoted if I show it has nothing to do with ones religious POV per se, but with any POV that rejects any other POV except its own. What you get is bias, no matter where the POV stems from. This is basic NPOV stuff. I think that all points of view are valid in their own way, to create the larger pictures of reality that an encylopedia should impart to its reader. This can only happen when all points of view are fairly and accurately characterized. I’d take the same stance no matter the philosophical worldview in question.

But, I know my arguments have generated extreme defensiveness. I can understand how it looks like the research I cite is aimed at attacking at the roots of their faith, but my only motivation is intellectual honesty, historical context, and a NPOV article. I won’t make these arguments here again, or makethe effort to show that since I started to argue and started to win over people to my point of view, and started to make progress, I’ve noticed the distortions of my actual position (straw man fallacies) and other fallacies including false accusations (socket puppetry), not willing to compromise, doing original research, being radical, extreme, etc. have increased. So have attempts at intimidation. Well, I guess that means I'm doing good work!! hehe About the reverts, yes, but its gone both ways, and I've never made changes without making my case on the talk page and only after the arguments went unanswered by opponents, and after I generated some agreement. Ofcourse, any work that I do, no matter how small gets reverted. The really silly part was that my work was being reverted back into an empty stub at Early Christianity, over and over, while my arguments on the talk page went unanswered. Luckily that has changed, finally. I still note that there is a glaring double standard in the burdon of getting consensus only for my changes, while other changes are accepted, even though there is no consensus.

I don't know if I'll ever be accepted as an equal editor at least regardng this article and controverial matter I'm arguing for, and the guardians of the orthodoxy of this article. But, I am glad to hear you admit that it's true I'm not accepted as an editor. I appreciate the honesty. I guess most would simply deny the descrimination. I have always been willing to compromise, but not on principals. I will continue to make my arguments and judge those of others on the merits of the case, using logic, rationality, and sourced material to support claims. I understand the nature of the topics I'm arguing for have polarized people so I get a feedback thats either really good or really critical. But I thank you for your feedback. I hope it was left in good faith because I'd much rather debate the issues than defending myself from attacks I’ll keep my arguments here at a minimum; it’s a waste of time. Besides maybe all these attacks are part of the diversionary tactics indicative of increased desperation at having lost the real arguments? Let me at least refute one claim---that I'm being “extremely arrogant”--because even if you think that my claims are of unwarranted importance, and they certainly do not stem from my own sense of pride. See: ar·ro·gant adj. “1. Making or disposed to make claims of unwarranted importance or consideration out of overbearing pride.” :)Giovanni33 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio: Also, you may want to look at this and this, regarding Wikipedia policy, NPOV, and minority views. Thanks...KHM03 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovani33, I regret that I don't have the leisure at the moment to fully respond to the points you raise. One point I do want to make clear is that it's really not the ideas that you're documenting that bother me. Instead, it's your occasional statements and more common insinuations that any scholarship done by a 'Christian' of any sort is inherently biased, that Christians in general distort or ignore evidence to conform to their dogma. This is where you are repeatedly running afoul of the civility policy. If you would take the time to learn how to work with other editors, perhaps starting on less controversial topics, I think you'll find that we really aren't that hard to work with. And for the record, there's plenty in the previous version of the Christianity article that I wouldn't say if I were writing from my own POV, as well as many other articles. Most of us really aren't nearly as "dogmatic" or inflexible as you seem to think. I just hope I'm not wasting my time here. (and regarding the definition of 'arrogance', I used that because you included yourself among those with a track record of familiarity with WP:NPOV, which at least came across as a "claim of unwarranted importance." Perhaps that wasn't your intent, in which case I apologize.) Wesley 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 3RR violations and editwarring. The block will expire in 24 hours, or earlier if you will promise me to stop revert-warring. Take the time to discuss your edits, source your additions etc, and try to respect consensus. If that does not work go ahead and ask for a mediator. Your contribs look intelligently written, and I hope we can keep you as a wikipedian.--Tznkai 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznakai. I think everyone would agree I've spend a huge amount of my time and efforts discussing my edits, sourcing my additions, and working for consensus on the talk page before making my edits (which always get reverted right away by a team that is devoted to supressing these ideas--even if it means reverting it into an empty stub!-where I was followed over to another article for this purpose.

The next logical step, not having been intimated, is to ask for an impartial mediator. I have truth on my side and I'm confident in the power of reason, logic, and my ability to back up my claims by refernce to prominant mainstream academic scholars who can not be discounted. The problem is that I'm im not part of the inner circle that shares the same POV, so it doesn;t matter that I can prove by argumentation the veracity and validity for incusion of my edits, they will be reverted under under various false pretexts that I've refuted (original research, POV, innacurate, extreme, radical, fringe, no consensus); the actual excuses keep revolving. Yet, these claims are not either substanciated or proven to be false, and double stanards are maintained. Luckily Wikipeadia is much larger than only the Christian page, otherwise, I'd think there would be no hope for forcing a compromise. Giovanni33 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I do know you've violated Edit warring doctrine. I have a personal policy of always ignoring conspiracy theories, no matter how plausible. That having been said, I highly suggest you find a mediator, and I will be on hand to enforce policy if need be. Do you agree to find a mediator?---Tznkai 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree not to violate the policy, although I note that the policy was only enforced against my side, when the other side was doing the same thing. I will still attempt for consensus and compromise a bit longer before going to the mediator route. I think just knowing I've not given up on the cause would be enough in itself to cause them to see that their stance is not tenable in the long run. Othewise, I do appreciate your offer for assistance. Giovanni33 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, the other side was not "doing the same thing". I have never in all my time at Wikipedia violated the 3RR rule. In fact, I seldom revert at all. We respected the 3RR rule. You, despite numerous warnings, did not. On one occasion you reverted ELEVEN times within a period of about eighteen and a half hours. Shortly before being blocked, you reverted six times (within 24 hours) at Christianity. A few days before that, you reverted five times at Transubstantiation. I lost count of your Early Christianity reverts, but you were clearly in violation there as well. You were warned again and again and again, and you remained unrepentant. As for your claim that the other side "followed you over" to Early Christianity, KHM03 was there before you, and all the editors who disputed your edits there had a history of involvement with many different articles about Christianity. (We might well wonder how your newly-registered supporters managed to find their way over to Early Christianity and Transubstantiation to support your edits.)

I agree that you spent "a huge amount of [your] time and efforts discussing [your] edits", but you certainly did not "spend a huge amount of [your] time and efforts . . . working for consensus on the talk page before making [your] edits." You kept uploading your version to the article, and seemed to be insisting that it should stay there until the other side had proved to your satisfaction that it wasn't appropriate. You also kept saying in the edit summary that it was a consensus version, even though there was no consensus.

There is no inner circle. Your edits were removed because they were fringe scholarhip, and because, contrary to what you claimed, there was no consensus for them. We tried to go easy on you because you were a newcomer. I cannot recall that it ever happened before that someone who so blatantly and so unrepentantly violated the 3RR rule remained unblocked for so long. We actually didn't want to report you. And in return, all we got was more violations, plus accusations (sometimes from you, sometimes from your friends) of bigotry, sneakiness, POV-pushing, suppressing the truth, etc., and snide remarks about how "Christians don't want to talk about their origins. hehe".

I want to warn you again, that if you continue to revert, but try to game the system by timing it so that your fourth revert falls just outside of the 24-hour period, you could get blocked again. It's also normal that when people continue to edit war, they get longer blocks on subsequent occasions. And finally, they might be forbidden to revert any article more than once a week, and blocked if they went beyond that. I recently saw an ArbCom case where that was one of the rulings.

We're all prepared to work with you and put this behind us. I'm sure I can speak for the others in saying that. But I must ask you to stop reverting, and stop making accusations. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 18:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AnnH. KHM03 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted no less than the other side reverted, the difference only being that your side has more of a tag team network developed. So while it was not technically identical it was the same thing--edit warring. And, they were never given any warning, but actually encouraged, with you playing a leadership role in directing. You say "infact I seldom revert," but on this very talk page in one of your warning you say, quite correctly, "The problem was that you were doing a lot of reverts (well, I know I was too!)..." Yes, you were, too. So were others. The other thing that makes it not the same is that you and your friends (at least three) did not argue their case on the talk board as I did; while my reverts were after gaining some consensus and compromise among some of the more flexible members of the opposition. It was also only after the the opposing view failed to back up their central claims (such as the claim you make here about my views being fringe), and when others others agreed, with up to 9 editors who were all working together by making edits within the context of the new sections I introduced (Mikereichold, MikaM, Fubar Obfusco, Storm Rider, Wesley, Belinda, and myself. Even Str1977 (until he mysteriously reverted back when with no mention of any reason in the edit summar (it left blank), and then you and KH03 came to enforce that reverted old version). See here: [[1]] He followed this reversion by another edit summarized as "m." So, I restored the compromised version which I forged. Then you revert back (taking turns with KH03), and all without an argument and contributions on the talk page--other than I dont have consenus yet. When I asked you to make your case like everyone is supposed to, you only say that you agree "with what he said." (He being KHO3 who went silent earlier after failing to cite sources to back up his central claim). Many others have pointed this out, see comment on Christianity Confict here[[2]]

You say, "(We might well wonder how your newly-registered supporters managed to find their way over to Early Christianity and Transubstantiation to support your edits.) And, I know you have insinsuated many times that they are socketpuppets, or called them "meatpuppets," (interesting term), but I think you know the answer to your question (I note not everyone who agreed with me was a new user). I found out you were doing--leaving messages in the users talk page--and so I did the same thing. For example your message to your friends warning them, that "the articles in most danger of being filled with fringe scholarship at the moment is the Early Christianity article, precisely because the "origins" section is still only a stub. I read a fair amount of Church history some years ago, before I got interested in linguistics, but I've forgotten most of it now. AnnH (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [[3]]

And, : 'POV and fringe scholarship spreading' Hello again. I have a feeling that Early Christianity could benefit from your presence! Ditto for Transubstantiation.It's hard to keep track of all the problems here. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And,"Christianity's originsI am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers, Ann. [[4]]

This explained the sudden appearance of these others and why I say I followed me over there. Maybe you are right that they were there a long time ago, but it was just a stub and they were for a long time not active there. When I expaned the section on Early Christianity, and contributed with small reference to some historical origins on the Transubstantiationarticle, they showed up after your calling them into action under the banner 'POV and fringe scholarship spreading' Before then, in the case of teh later article, the other editors were active there already before, did compromise with me and we had worked out an acceptable text which was included. It was only after you called out the troops out so to speak, who agressively defend their turn on the Christianity article, that the edit warning occured. They simply reverted and ignored the prior consensus and you backed them up, claiming there is was consensus. True, not anymore. The Trans article was even intially reverted with the edit summary calling it "vandalism." This is why I say edit warring was objectively encouraged when it came to pusing your own POV, (to suppress my point of view, which to you describe is "fringe.") I think I've proven otherwise referencing prominent mainstream scholars within the discipline. Others have commented to that once its reached a certain level of acceptance it can no longer be called fringe. It might not be mainstream but I've proven its a signifant minory view. If you and others maintain it's not then I only ask that one support this claim. So far no one has; simply saying doenst doen't by itself make it true. :)

I'm glad and I believe its true when you say "We're all prepared to work with you and put this behind us." So am I. But I must ask you to stop reverting, and stop making accusations. Yes, I will but the same goes for both sides, then. :) Giovanni33 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the crux of the debate is still the claim of fringe view vs. signifiant minority view, and even though I've provided dozens of reputable scholars to refute this claim while nothing has been produced to support it by the other side, since its being argued here, let me cite again just one or two authors that should suffice to prove my case: Prof. Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University She graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965) studied for her Ph.D. at Harvard University. At Harvard, she was part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library scrolls. Upon finishing her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1970, she joined the faculty at Barnard College, where she headed the department of religion from 1974. Her study of the Nag Hammadi scrolls was the basis for The Gnostic Gospels (1979), a bestselling book won both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the National Book Award and was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century. In 1982, Pagels joined Princeton University as a professor of early Christian history. She researched and wrote Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, which examines the creation myth among other things. Another work is her The Origin of Satan. In 1992, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to Gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the pastoral epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism. Her New York Times bestseller, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), focuses on religious claims to possessing the ultimate truth. In addition to the MacArthur award, Professor Pagels is also a recipient of the Guggenheim and Rockefeller fellowships.

I also used for the Transubstanciation article, Professor Barry Powell, one of the scholars of this purported "fringe view;" he holds a PhD from the University of California-Berkeley and is a professor of classics. His research includes include Greek poetry, mythology and Egyptology. He specifically argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." I would love to go and meet with with Prof. Powell, and ask him if his view is really considered "fringe," "radical," etc. Somehow that doesn't ring true given his textbook from which this is quoted, Classical Myth Third Edition, which is a standard and universally accepted as a university text. If it was so fringe then why would his texts be so accepted in academia? Ofcourse, I followed by dozen of other secular scholars, which proves that within reputable academic circles the views I want inclusion for, even if they are minority views, are not extreme fringe that justify supression.Giovanni33 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann's reply

Dear Giovanni,

I'll just reply to a few of your points before I go to bed.

When you say, "I reverted no less than the other side reverted", I presume you meant to say that you reverted no more than the other side reverted. If so, I must disagree. Nobody on the "other side" reverted eleven times in eighteen and a half hours. I regularly checked to make sure that I wasn't breaking any rules. I recall a message from KHM03 to Str1977 saying that he (KHM) could not revert again for the day. Guess what? He didn't revert again. I also recall a message from you to Belinda asking her to revert for you, because of 3RR. Then, while still within the 24-hour period, you reverted again, knowingly. You were aware of my reluctance to see anyone blocked. I told you I had never blocked or reported anyone for 3RR. I don't like doing it. And so you just kept going, and you were warned, and you still kept going.

I must take exception to your statement that I played a leadership role in encouraging the others to edit war. It is true that I asked Str1977 to keep an eye on two other articles, but he was aware of those two, even before I sent those messages. He had already edited one of them, and there was another message (not from me) on his talk page about the other. He is an excellent, very balanced editor, and is extremely knowledgeable. I often ask his help in articles, and was doing so long before you appeared at Wikipedia, and in articles where there was no dispute taking place.

You say also that the others were not given any warning. That's because they weren't flouting the rules like you and Belinda. You did eleven reverts in one day on one article, and six on another, and five on another, and about five on another. Why would I warn the others when they weren't doing that? And how can you expect that when new users turn up and revert four, five, six, eleven times a day, the old users will not make use of their three reverts?

Yes, I said that I seldom revert, and I stand over that. I do not have a history of edit warring. Not only have I never been blocked for 3RR violation: I have never committed it either. My average is well under one per day, from the time that I joined Wikipedia. You got away with it several times before you were blocked. Yes, I said in an earlier message that I knew I had made a lot of reverts. By that I meant simply that I had gone well above my average. I did not intend to imply that my scrupulous adherence to 3RR was in any way similar to your blatant and unrepentant violation of it. And I do not accept your implication that I, with my three reverts per day, was behaving like you with your eleven. Nevertheless, it was way above my average.

I make no accusations about sockpuppets. I have stated already that I do not think you and Belinda are the same user. However, on Wikipedia, new users who revert a lot or register when there's something to vote on are automatically considered to be sockpuppets. It's not meant to be an insult: it's a protection against abuse. It would be very easy to create four or five different accounts to help out in 3RR cases, or to gain a few extra votes. For that reason, new users are not considered to be "members of the community" until they have been around for a while, and have a certain number of edits. That sounds very unwelcoming, but it's not intended that way. It's just the way it is on Wikipedia. If MikaM went along to some official Wikipedia page where a vote was going on, and voted, he'd find his vote struck out by another editor, with the comment "User's twelfth edit" (or whatever). When I joined, Wikipedia, I signed something in support of a user who was in trouble, and an administrator posted a thing saying that I had registered two days before and had no history other than in the article which that other user was involved with. I felt rather snubbed, but just ignored what I found to be a rather unfriendly beginning. Later, I came across that administrator again. He had probably forgotten my name at that stage, and was helpful with some queries I had. I have a perfectly good relationship with him now, and I am sure he doesn't even remember the slightly bumpy beginning. Nor do I hold it against him.

So every new user has the same voting rights as an official sockpuppet. That doesn't mean that we accuse new users of sockpuppetry. But if they revert a lot and try to vote, the question will certainly be raised. Meatpuppets are also not allowed — friends who join Wikipedia in order to support someone. When people have enough edits, and when their edit history shows that they are not revert warriors with an axe to grind and an excessive interest in one topic, then they are considered full members. A newly-registered user who reverts four times within a couple of hours, in support of the version of another fairly new user is behaving like a sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet).

I noticed that you left a message for TheShriek, asking him to come to Transubstantiation. You did not ask Belinda, Kecik, or MikaM to come to that article, and none of them has the e-mail this user facility enabled. Yet they all turned up to support you. That is one reason to wonder about whether or not they are all genuine new users who joined Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to this.

Yes, I still say that it was not consensus. Even if some editors were indicating support for some ideas, that did not give you the right to revert back to your article. First of all, you didn't wait for views from everybody. There is no indication that the others agreed with the whole of your revert. And, even when you think there is consensus, you still have to respect 3RR. If it involves a revert, let someone else do it.

I will also tell you that I was given a rather rough time on the talk page of the first article I was involved with — precisely because I took the same side as a troublesome, edit-warring editor who had annoyed a lot of users. One of the editors who was rude to me apologized publicly a few days later, when he realized, through my calmness and my lack of edit warring, that I was, in fact a genuine editor. When I was nomintated to be an administrator, I reveived many votes from people who had disagreed with me about article content, and from people who said that I respected Wikipedia policy and remained calm on the talk pages of controversial articles.

As Wesley said, the people you've been insulting and reverting have a history of having collaborated with editors with whom they disagree. I can include him among them.

I don't condone using the word "vandalism" in an edit summary, and I would not do it myself, though I must point out that Belinda did that when she was reverting me. However, when some rather weird new material is posted, people can react to it as vandalism.

You are mistaken in thinking that I wrote this:

Christianity's origins I am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers.

If you look again, you'll see that it was Str1977, even though you have wrongly included my name in the signature. In any case, I must object to your statement that I "called out the troops" and that the aggressive edit warring occurred as a result of that. I post messages to Str1977 on a fairly regular basis. I frequently suggest articles that he should look at. I didn't tell him to revert. And in any case, it's a bit rich saying that we were the ones edit warring after your eleven and six and five and four, to say nothing of Belinda's numerous violations. The edit wars occurred because we had two new users who were violating — grossly violating — the 3RR rule.

It's true that I haven't made many historical or theological arguments on the talk page. I left that to Str1977, and KHM03. In any case, I was busy with a university assignment. Str1977 posted lengthy explanations of his objections to your edits. KHM was also quite thorough. I agreed with them both. You mightn't have been convinced, but you can't say that they didn't give their objections. And not all of your supporters gave profound theological arguments either!

Finally, with regard to the experts you cite, if a scholar is well respected in one discipline, it doesn't make him an authority in another.

Good night. AnnH ^(talk) 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ann. I think we can at this point simply agree to disagree and not waste our times arguing about something that is now moot and probably wont be of signifant historical value (but if it is can be revisited). I'd much rather spend my time writing, and debating the real issues than who acted fairly or not failry to whom, etc. I will follow the rules, which I admit I probably did violate. I do not protest my punishment, and I still commit to working with others civilly in keeping with the rules and spirt of our shared wikiverse. On a side note though, I can look at the contributes of any user and thus see where they are active and what they are doing. I guess that any new editors could have easily have done that wth me and found me at the other sites. This seems a logical and plausable explantion, as well. Giovanni33 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy ?

Proof of my claim that you were editit waring and infact also you violated the 3RR rule yourself in doing so.

Hi Ann. I just wanted put you on notice with this warning incase you are not aware it. You blocked me for the violation and claimed you seldom revert yourself, which I disputed. Here I present evidence where, as is usual, you revert back to Str1977's version. I also note that there is no case made for this version while the other side has made a case and has asked that the disagreements be worked outinstead of edit warring. There is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute from your side that wants this version. I suggest you stop edit warring, and ask that those who support your side (seems to be only Str1977, who also reverted 4 times),at least make their case instead of blindly reverting, along with you following him, which suggests a possible meat puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christian mythology

I don't necessarily have a problem with your edits here (it's a bit more "fluid" a topic than some of the others we've worked on together), but you might want to be aware (perhaps you already are) that this article has quite a heated history, particularly around the word "myth", a term which several users find troubling (though it doesn't bother me). Just a "heads up". KHM03 12:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did actually read through much of the history there and saw the heated exchanges. Giovanni33 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christianity

No harm done. KHM03 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi; It's one thing to have an edit summary that is uninformative. It's another to accuse others of "suprresion of NPOV language and content." That's an overt accusation of bad faith, surely not what you intended. The summaries are so short that it's easy to be misunderstood. Please just describe your edit, and discuss your changes on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you for 3RR violation on Christianity, supported by results from Checkuser[5]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but in error. I'd like to the the evidence for the conection. BelindaGong is quite a distint person from myself. If I could see the methodology that purports to link us, I could investigate it and possibly offer an explanation that vindicates my innocence. Looking at the Christianity article, which you are using to report an alleged 3RR violation, I note that user BelindaGong did not revert to what I had done but addressed an issue on the talk pages, than worked out a change with user Wesley.Giovanni33 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For evidence of the connection between you and BelindaGong, it looks like you would need to take it up with Matthew Brown, the admin and ArbCom member who tracked down the evidence for it. You did (as BelindaGong) revert the main paragraphs in question to your version, but with a little more care to avoid reverting other parts of the article at the same time. Wesley 14:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why this block is unjust is because even if there were reason to believe that BelindaGong has a connection to my IP address, that is not sufficient to conclude she and I are one in the same, and thus add up our cumulative edits to impose a 3RR violation block. A socket puppet is defined as one editor who assumes another identity. In this case there are two separate editors who it is now claimed are linked in some technical way by virtue of an IP trace. This doesn't prove that there is one editor. The block is thus based on speculation. In effect this means that anyone who has a roommate or spouse, for example, who also edits here and shares a common POV, can be said for practical purposes to lose their own identity, or worse, be blocked--even when they did not violate any rules? Giovanni33 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I don't know whether you and Belinda are one editor or two who share an address. It doesn't actually make any difference. This all came up before in the case of User:Hollow Wilerding. If you and Belinda are husband and wife, brother and sister, or boyfriend and girlfriend under one roof, then you cannot revert six times, or vote twice between you. User:Mindspillage and User:Jdavidb are two highly-respected administrators who share a home with a partner/spouse. They both make it clear on their user page. If Jdavidb is reverting or voting, his wife does not; if Mindspillage is reverting or voting, her boyfriend does not. There's no duplicity.

Obviously, housemates of Wikipedians are welcome to join Wikipedia. However, they are not welcome to cast an extra vote or help with reverting. And this has been ruled on before. If that rule were not in place, then anyone could set up three or four accounts and claim to be siblings. Just think of how many reverts I'd be able to make per day, since the Irish have large families. The IP check would then be worthless, since I could claim that the twelve other reverts or the four other votes were from my four siblings. And the elaborate pretence you set up about being completely unconnected to Belinda, combined with your insinuations that Str1977 and KHM03 were sockpuppets, or that I was a meatpuppet for Str1977, make you come out of this rather badly. I'm going to ask you straight out — if you are not one person using two accounts, is BelindaGong someone you know in real life, and whom you knew before she joined Wikipedia? AnnH ^(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the same question about Trollwatcher, Kecik, and John1838. If any of these are you or someone whom you know, please come clean, so we can move on. KHM03 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And User:Freethinker99. KHM03 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will disclose that I to log in from different locations, because I'm not always at home. Some of these locatoins are public ones.Freethinker99 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, thanks for the explanation. It does make sense, unless one can prove that we are different people. Is there a mechanism to prove this? Such as a place to voluntarily fax in an ID? Just curious. As to you direct question, before I answer, I just want to know why does the answer matter if it is going to be assumed to be a socket in anycase? The answer would be moot, no? If you tell me how it makes a material difference then I'd be happy to answer. As to KHM03's question, since he has been one of the more nicer Christians, I'll answer him and state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past. Giovanni33 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, aren't you concerned that Freethinker99 will be annoyed at your removing his signature from his comment and replacing it with your own? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's his message that I left for him, in his text. His name should be on it. That was a mistake for me to sign his name. Freethinker99 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia three revert rule. You can edit your talk page and or email an admin to have the block lifted if you feel this block was in error.--MONGO 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Intro Text

Dear Giovanni33:

Please join the discussion on the Jesus talk page before reverting. This version has taken hours of discussion, sometimes heated, plus countless hours of my research time to establish. I still have many hours of documenting and verifying ahead of me on this issue. It is preventing me from working on other articles and other areas of this article to have to debate with people I agree with.

I have just added a "cut to the chase" section to the Jesus page. Please express your view as to why we should use the very judgement-loaded adjectives and delete one of the minorities major, though flawed, arguments.

My purpose here is to establish a paragraph we can guard and not get grief from an admin. When it's done, we can point to the documentation and set up an archive of the discussion that got us to it, along with the capsule bios of the cited authors. Then we can move on. --CTSWyneken 13:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)