User talk:EnochBethany: Difference between revisions
EnochBethany (talk | contribs) |
EnochBethany (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
:I have not denied that English words can have Greek roots. Indeed I taught a class on this in a university. I will give you a rule: If a technical term has o for the connecting vowel (like carcinology) it probably has greek roots. But if it has i for the connecting vowel (like cribriform), it probably has Latin roots. And does it really make any sense that someone should be so concerned about discussions on talk pages? |
:I have not denied that English words can have Greek roots. Indeed I taught a class on this in a university. I will give you a rule: If a technical term has o for the connecting vowel (like carcinology) it probably has greek roots. But if it has i for the connecting vowel (like cribriform), it probably has Latin roots. And does it really make any sense that someone should be so concerned about discussions on talk pages? |
||
It is certain that nothing defamatory was posted by myself on my talk page. Yet it |
It is certain that nothing defamatory was posted by myself on my talk page. Yet it was stated that it was for '''my editing of my talk page''' that I was blocked, not for old discussions on talk pages. This block was unjustified. ([[User:EnochBethany|EnochBethany]] ([[User talk:EnochBethany#top|talk]]) 07:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)) |
||
Revision as of 07:50, 2 February 2016
EVEN IF WIKIPEDIA IS CONCERNED ABOUT 2NDARY SOURCES, RATHER THAN "TRUTH," THERE ARE HIGHER PRINCIPLES THAN WIKIPEDIA & WIKI-LAWYERS. THOSE PRINCIPLES MEAN THAT WE SHOULD STATE THE TRUTH, NOT JUST REPEAT LIES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN 2NDARY SOURCES. REMEMBER THAT I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE; NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME. REGARD FOR TRUTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WIKIPEDIA RULES.
PRINCIPLES OF THIS TALK PAGE 1. Everyone have a happy day and refrain from posting insults. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC))
2. Do not post any claims of edit-warring when I add content with citation(s) to an article and you yourself are the only one who did any reverting. The reverter is the edit-warrior. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC))
3. Kindly refrain from posting antagonistic posts about what I said on a talk page. Conduct the debate on the talk page where I interacted with the post there, not here. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
4. Wikilawyering ist verboten. "Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning." (EnochBethany (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC))
5. Kindly refrain from posting anything on this talk page which has nothing to do with improving a Wikipedia article. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC))
6. Talk pages do not require citations. Someone complained about posting questions about the article, claiming that asking the question was a defamation; for crying outloud. (EnochBethany (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC))
7. Because you may have a group of buddies who support each other with your agenda, that does not make your agenda righteous nor correct. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC))
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War / 'Syrian 21st century war'
Hi, please see my new posting on Talk:Syrian Civil War#Is the title correct, "Civil War"?. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop with the fringe living persons violations. Dave Dial (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- The same goes for Talk:Frank Marshall Davis. Just stop. Jonathunder (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Blocked
You were given warnings directly above. You chose to remove the warnings and add the information on your talk page that you were warned about. As a result, you are blocked.
Any administrator is welcome to unblock you (without consulting me) provided that you state that you understand the message Gamaliel placed just above this and that you agree not to make such edits again. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
EnochBethany (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes
Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material." I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice?Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
(EnochBethany (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC))
- Removing the warning was not disruptive, but it is interpreted as a sign that you read and understand it, including the words "or any other Wikipedia page". This talk page is a page on Wikipedia, ergo it is a Wikipedia page. Putting defamatory material anywhere on the site is the problem. That was not the first time you were given the warning, either. Going against it is either a sign that you aren't capable of cooperation (or at least reading warnings) or have no interest in cooperation with this community's goals.
- Honestly, I don't see any admin unblocking you, because the WP:THETRUTH-ish intro you've got at the top of the page:
- is overall a clear sign that you do not care about the goals or standards of this community.
- misinterprets WP:V as meaning that WP:BLP doesn't apply on talk pages.
- fails to see the above as wikilawyering, while cherry-picking a portion of the page on Wikilawyering with the obvious intention to refuse to be held to any of the site's standards or procedures.
- asks that users not post here unless it is about article improvement, while asking users to let you post stuff on talk pages that you are aware on some level doesn't belong in articles.
- Plus, you don't seem to understand that you are indeed in the wrong here. The best thing you could do is admit you made a mistake regarding our policies and promise not to do it again. Your current unblock request is only going to make any admin who sees this conclude "problematic user, incapable of self-evaluation, humility, cooperation, or paying attention." And all that's if another admin doesn't look at your edit history and see the constant POV-pushing, edit warring, original research, and [stuff like arguing that 666 means "eighteen" in English instead of "six-hundred and sixty-six" or altering a quote of a translation because of what you think the original manuscript said, or denying the ancient Greek roots of an English word because English wasn't around back then. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Removing the warning was not disruptive,"
But the stated issue is that a criterion of judging this conflict is whether or not a post was disruptive. I did nothing disruptive on MY TALK PAGE, though the boiler plate is disruptive, firing cannon balls at a canary bird.
"Putting defamatory material anywhere on the site is the problem. "
- Neither the addition of the word "possibly" before the claimed father of the president is defamatory, nor is my stated principle on my talk page, though insertion of "possibly" in the natural-born article is not the issue here, since the possibly insertion was not done after the warning
"That was not the first time you were given the warning, either." This is the first time that I ever got a warning about putting the one word addition "possibly" in an article. And the warning was nonsense.
Going against it is either a sign that [[WP:CIR|you aren't capable of cooperation"
- You might claim it as noncooperation had I inserted "probably" again after that warning, but I did not do so. I didn't realize that the warning was from an administrator anyway. And I find the warning unjustified.
"this community's goals"
- "I call that the anonymous allies argument. No poll of the editors has been taken to see what percent agree with this blocking.
"Honestly, I don't see any admin unblocking you, because the WP:THETRUTH-ish intro you've got at the top of the page"
- If you don't hold the truth to be a higher standard than Wikipedia's rules, and a principle which trumps such rules, then you take your place with the Nazi community in Germany which was "following rules," but it didn't save them from judgment at Nuremberg.
"wikilawyering, while cherry-picking a portion of the page on Wikilawyering"
- Are you sure that you are not right now wikilawyering?
"with the obvious intention to refuse to be held to any"
- What is your proof that it is obvious & any? I was unaware & I still do not believe I departed from any stated Wiki rules in either my original addition of one word which was not defamatory, as the hypothesis on which it depends is not defamatory; the deceased gentleman whom some think is the president's true father certainly had great accomplishments in life. Who would say it defamed the president if it were true that Davis was his biological father? But I didn't claim it. There was no defamation in the article by the insertion of "possibly," neither did I assert anything about the president when I erased the unjust warning here & added a general principle.
"asks that users not post here unless it is about article improvement, while asking users to let you post stuff on talk pages that you are aware on some level doesn't belong in articles."
- Talk page is for discussing what belongs in articles. Persons disagree; so what?
"Plus, you don't seem to understand that you are indeed in the wrong here."
- I am not in the wrong here. 1) nothing defamatory was posted anywhere. 2) the grounds of the block a) erasing my talk page, and b) posting a true principle was not wrong. I did not defy a warning. If I had gone & put "possibly" back in the article you might say that, but I did not.
- Perhaps you fail to realize that I am a Greek scholar and that I am correct in my statement about 666 and six-hundred sixty-six, and that Greek letter/numbers do not have place value, but additive value. Why you should object to this discussion on a talk page is not based on rationality or knowledge of Greek.
- Do you really fail to realize that the original Greek generally had no punctuation?
- I have not denied that English words can have Greek roots. Indeed I taught a class on this in a university. I will give you a rule: If a technical term has o for the connecting vowel (like carcinology) it probably has greek roots. But if it has i for the connecting vowel (like cribriform), it probably has Latin roots. And does it really make any sense that someone should be so concerned about discussions on talk pages?
It is certain that nothing defamatory was posted by myself on my talk page. Yet it was stated that it was for my editing of my talk page that I was blocked, not for old discussions on talk pages. This block was unjustified. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC))