User talk:Korvex

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 08:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Era changes

I didn't revert your edits and I'd suggest you discuss them on the talk page. Ignoring any other issues, you can't just change BCE to BC or vice versa, you need to follow WP:ERA. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't discuss the Exodus on my talk page

I'm not banning you from my talk page, but I am asking you to stick to the Exodus talk page and not discuss it on mine. Thanks.Doug Weller talk 07:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at FTN

I've started a discussion at WP:FTN#Fringe archaeology in biblical related articles. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Ai (Canaan) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Exodus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Exodus. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor JudeccaXIII: But it's my section? Er, if my section on the Talk Page is answered, what do I do? Just leave it there?Korvex (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for archiving purposes...and there's no owning discussions. It would have been appropriate to delete the discussion if no one replied. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attacks must stop

You have made a number of personal attacks before, , but accusing someone of lying is beyonfpd the pale. Please retract it now before you are reported to WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, mate. Also thanks for noting my number of contributions.Korvex (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit count

Look at your contributions page. At the bottom click on edit count. 117 edits right now. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Ai (Canaan) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, you're feeling frustrated and that frustration is leading you to do things that I think you wouldn't normally do. Remember above all that Wikipedia doesn't matter, it's just words. Other things in the real world matter, not this. So if you want to go on editing Wikipedia (it can be fun), stay calm and cultivate detachment. And always remember that the other person is probably just as human as you are. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But a lot of people take Wikipedia's word as Gospel. So it's annoying to watch people defend things which are, sometimes in the conversation, blatantly false. But thanks.Korvex (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me or anyone of slander

Knock it off please. It only makes you look silly. If I found an editor I didn't know saying that about someone else, I'd probably tell them to retract it or be blocked for what might be considered a legal threat. You've got every right to disagree with my criticisms, no right to accuse me of doing something illegal. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of the word "slander" was an exaggeration, but I do think false statements were made about me. I also exaggerate some of the things I say a lot, so I should perhaps put in a disclaimer or something. LOL

It wasn't about you, you said I was slandering scholars. Criticising, yes. Slander, no. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.Korvex (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks

Your comments about Tgeorgescu are unconscionable. You've got to stop this. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I said was an attack on Tgeorg. I simply attacked the wacky idea that if one accepts the Bible is true, they should conclude that they should worship Zulu instead of Jesus. I attacked the idea, not the person -- such criticisms are always acceptable. I never swore either, of course.Korvex (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"sold yourself to pure fundamentalism" is personal. As was "utterly entered the recesses of the fringe." As is "Zero has taken the literally mad view that Doherty". All are clear attacks and do not show an acceptance that they are good faith editors. Using such language is anything but conducive to a collegial atmosphere, no matter how tyoy chop it. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the discussion, Doug -- I'd be hardpressed to say that invoking Zulu as an explanation for biblical miracles is anything but the recesses of fringe, according to how Wikipedia defines it. I'd like to assume good faith for Theorg, but when he says something like that it's hard to interpret it otherwise. Zulu as en explanation for biblical miracles is also a mad view and pure fundamentalism. My statements are correct -- the only question is if whether or not I could have been 'nicer', but it's hard to convey to someone they are making such an error without putting their views down.Korvex (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There are polite ways to disagree with someone. Zulu was attempting to make some kind of point about the nature of miraculous explanations by using a deliberately far-fetched example. If you think his thought experiment doesn't make sense, you could easily say "Your thought experiment doesn't make sense" without resorting to needlessly harsh language. The same goes for your repeated dismissal of people's arguments by saying "LOL." Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who are all trying to work together to make the world's largest and most-used encyclopedia better. It's a volunteer project, not a YouTube comments section. Attacking the other volunteers isn't going to help anything, especially if you find yourself in a situation where you're trying to bring them over to your point of view on something. Alephb (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

After being accused of sockpuppetry for ridiculously vague reasons, I have been acquitted of these nonsense charges.Korvex (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

POV edit at Ai (Canaan))

You wrote "However,scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai, citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir." Did you actually read your source? I have, I think, two choices. One is to believe that you didn't and you got this from elsewhere. The other is to believe that you did and misrepresented it, violating NPOV by ignoring the fact that what the source actually says is "The stratification of Jericho is complex, but it looks as if the conclusion that the city was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age is hard to avoid.113 Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." Oh sure, he then says "In some of these cases, this interpretation of the evidence is challenged or the identification of the excavated mounds with the biblical cities is questioned." and cites not just Wood by Livingston also. He then adds "But although a number of the alternative proposals may be plausible, none of them is entirely convincing. Most of the time the claims of the biblical account are more or less modified, and the material remains are tended to be looked upon as tangible proof of what is supposed to have happened. As a result, the conclusions find clear support in neither the Bible nor archaeology. Therefore, the debates about the non-existing cities show that in the case of the conquest, archaeology can not function as undisputed ‘external evidence’." Your edit misrepresents the source. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of online encyclopedias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I thought English would just go to the language.Korvex (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)