User talk:Humanpublic

Greetings!

	Welcome To Wikipedia!
	Hello Humanpublic, and welcome to Wikipedia! As always, remember to sign your posts using 4 tildes (4 of these ~.) Otherwise we won't even know who typed in the comment. Jayemd (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Humanpublic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
How to add those all-important references
Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here!

Edit to The House of Mirth

Thank you very much for trimming the content on The House of Mirth. There are many articles on Wikipedia about fictional material (such as films, tv or novels) which have an overabundance of plot information and not enought focus on the rest of the real world context of the work. We actually have an essay on cleaning up articles that overemphasis plot at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works, if you are interested. I also left some useful links in a template just above so that you can find more information about editing if you need to. I hope your experience with Wikipedia thus far has been good! Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Humanpublic. You have new messages at Talk:Periodic_table#Why_in_the_world_is_this_protected.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:HEAR

I think you need to read WP:HEAR, and WP:SPI as well. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you do. Humanpublic (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, read WP:HEAR and WP:STICK. The discussion at Talk:Jesus has been closed a second time. If you reopen it, it will be reclosed immediately and manually archived, and your disruptive behavior will be brought up to the admins. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything disruptive, except your saber-rattling. I responded to comments left for me. If you don't want to participate, don't. If you don't want to read the thread, don't. You're just attempting to censor. Humanpublic (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:HEAR is there exactly for that purpose. By your argument WP:HEAR should not exist, but it does. So WP:HEAR must be respected. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have refused to respond to almost everything I've said, and when you have responded with something besides sarcasm, it has been a straw man. For example, I say many scholars express no opinion on the existence of Jesus, and you argue as if I've said many scholars object to the existence of Jesus. You can't invoke HEAR when you don't even understand what is being said. Humanpublic (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seek consensus, not revert

Please also read WP:TPG. Per WP:TPG I have enclosed your off-topic comments. Also note that per WP:TPG you should not undo the actions of other editors, so please do not undo my edits, or those of other editors. You need to seek consensus for undoing those. So seek consensus now, not revert.History2007 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of sources is hardly off-topic, and given how often this topic recurs, there's obviously no consensus. You are censoring. If the subject doesn't interest you, leave it alone. That's all. Humanpublic (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually consensus decides these things. So you should seek that not revert. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

And please do read WP:3RR and avoid edit warring against multiple editors. You know that it will only lead to a block. Remember: In Wikipedia, consensus is king. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that despite that notice, you hit revert again. You are engaging in edit warring. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I would be blocked for wanting someone who replied to me to be able to see my response. You are censoring. If you don't want to read that thread, don't read it. What is wrong with you? Humanpublic (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:3RR is a "bright line rule" and once you cross it you will be blocked. Read it now please and stop now. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are vandalizing and censoring. THere is no reason to prevent interested people from participating in the discussion. If it doesn't interest you, leave it alone. You are preventing ReformedArsenal from seeing my response to his comment. Humanpublic (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VANDALISM. The multiple editors who have closed the discussion because it's become nothing but mantra chanting for your useless deaf ears were acting in good faith, and if you continue to accuse any of them of vandalism or censorship I will add a note about personal attacks to the report I'm writing now. You are being nothing but disruptive -- for the Nth time, read WP:HEAR. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA & WP:TE

It also seems that this is by and large a WP:SPA account that mostly just types the same comment on the same talk page again and again, clearly running into WP:TE. I will not bother tagging the user page, but will just note it here. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR breach

Per these 4 links:

You have now breached WP:3RR. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

Please read my closing comments at WP:ANEW. Although you were not sanctioned, any more disruptive behavior or edit-warring on your part may be met by a block without any further notice or warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the case anymore. I also don't see how anything I did could be considered disruptive. The spirit of edit warring, according to the links I was given, is trying to win a content dispute or undo someone else's work. I never edited the article, and closing a discussion (that is progress, no less) is hardly Ian T.'s "work." You've made it possible to censor any minority opinion: the majority just closes/archives the discussion it dislikes, and then wins the edit war to keep it closed. Humanpublic (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link you need. And please follow policy, and heed warnings. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Jesus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is responding to a comment directed at me vandalism? Kindly refrain from censorship and powertrips. Humanpublic (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned before, right on this talkpage. The section is closed. Do not re-open it. Heed the warnings you've been given, follow the guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the guidelines. You're interpretation of them is in error, and your actions are abusive. Humanpublic (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Seb az86556. You have been told about WP:V by a number of users over a number of months, and are running over WP:HEAR and WP:Forum issues here. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your edits on Talk:Jesus

I happen to agree. There were many historians living during the time of Christ, and not one of them made mention of Jesus' fame, miracles, and crucifixion until after the popularization of the four gospels. Josephus, a widely relied source for the historicity of Jesus by Christian theologians, was interestingly born 4 years after the purported crucifixion of Jesus. His testimony is not convincing. Anyways, Take care. Nashhinton (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Trying to bring logic to religion is impossible, and bringing it to the dominant religion of particular culture even mores. It seems rather likely that the page is monitored by a flock (so to speak) of Christian editors. Humanpublic (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do take heart from the overturning of the censorship-by-archiving issue mentioned above. Humanpublic (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Jesus

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jesus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. There is no consensus for deleting the sourced content you're consistently removing Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of vandalism are disruptive, according to the last admin comment on this. Humanpublic (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I just don't like it and disruptive editing

Please read Wikipedia:I just don't like it and stop deleting items from Wikipedia that run against arguments you are presenting on article talk pages:

In this edit you deleted a reference to the Oxford Dictionaty and added a website. I have not looked at the website yet (which may eventually get WP:LINKROT), but the Oxford Dictionary is a good source.

In the next edit you deleted a source statement that may go against your arguments elsewhere.

Please stop item deletions that relate to talk page discussions you are having elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please present the text from Oxford Encyclopedia. The other deletions were invalid sources and misrepresentations of the sources. Humanpublic (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you really need to stop this. In this edit you deleted a statement from Yifa. As I pointed out when reverting you, he is middle aged, but still breathing. You must stop Wikipedia:I just don't like it edits. Yifa was writing commentary. This is really pushing the limit now. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please read WP:3RR and note that it is a "bright line rule". You are either on the line or have crossed it on the Jesus page and the next time you perform a revert you will be blocked. Bright line rules are not subject to excuses. So you must stop reverting now that you have been notified. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit twice. How convenient for you that another zealot has got your back. Humanpublic (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is against the rules and doesn't work anyway. So stop it or you'll be done here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

A discussion on WP:ANI about you [1].Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not that important

get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want as long as there's good reason to do so. Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no condescending remarks. Wikipedia is not the place for boorish etiquette. See Wikipedia:Etiquette. Nashhinton (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The historical Jesus

Hello again. You wrote on ANI that you wanted to edit Jesus from a litterature point of view, and that sounds excellent. You also wrote that you want to make sure that the article doesn't take a pro-Christian POV and I think you're absolutely right in that, and I'd be glad to help you with it. It seems we have locked horns long enough about the issue of Jesus's existence, so could I suggest we move on and leave the issue behind us? You're of course free to do as you please, but at least for the next week, I won't make any edit about the question of Jesus's existence myself. If you want to make edits about the historical Jesus, as described by Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes in their many books and articles (in which they tear apart a great deal of traditional Christian beliefs), I'll gladly help you. For such edits, there is an abundance of good sources. This is only a suggestion, you are of course free to ignore it.Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is for "He adds sources without reading them", per WP:NPA, section 3, point 5.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your previous comment above, "Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism.", you appear to be a blockhead. Humanpublic (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop personal attacks

You must understand that your statement in this edit: "He has a tendency to cite books he hasn't read" is a clear breach of WP:NPA (sec 3.5) as pointed out above. I had read the sources (except the Oxford Dictionary which was there before I started editing the page, and there was no reason to remove it) and sources are perfectly fine, as discussed here. Now, stop breaching policy. History2007 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who think so are your cronies. If "He has a tendency to cite books he hasn't read." is a personal attack, then Wikipedians have skins thinner than rice paper. Humanpublic (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. (see this section above) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history and style, I'm pretty sure this is not my last warning. Have you heard of the Golden Rule? If you don't want me posting to your Talk page, why are you posting to mine? Humanpublic (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't told me not to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a turd. Consider yourself told. Humanpublic (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New personal attack (after multiple warnings) needs a block

This is a clear, clear personal attack. You directly stated to me: "You are being dishonest" when I commented on another user's statement. And all of this after the repeated requests to read WP:NPA and stop attacks. And I see that in the above you made a personal attack against another user. Based on the above, a block on your account is certainly in order. Multiple warnings have been issued in the past 48 hours, and yet this continues... A block is clearly in order, per policy. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]