quitting this facade for the promotion of Christianity, and the egos of admins. Humanpublic ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Basket Feudalist 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
"...facade for the promotion of Christianity"? You've got to be kidding. This website has been alleged to be controlled by atheists, homosexuals, religionists, porn-purveyors, left-wing radicals, right-wing radicals, any ethnic group you can name, and even the "circumcision cabal" (I kid you not), and a host of other lobbyists. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to vanish, please follow the instructions here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You have requested that your account be vanished, however since doing so you have continued to involve yourself in several ongoing content disputes. An editor who vanishes is expected to refrain from involvement in the issues which led them to request vanishing. If you have changed your mind and wish to continue editing Christianity-related articles, you should contact the bureaucrats and withdraw your request for vanishing. If you still wish to be vanished, you should probably refrain from entering new disputes like the one on Talk:Argument from silence. -- LWG talk 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
On a totally unrelated note, while looking at your edit history I noticed that you said almost a year ago that you believed this article was copy/pasted from another source. Did you have any idea of what the source was so we can look into copyright concerns? -- LWG talk 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that you have been indefinitely banned from editing articles related to faith and religion, broadly construed, as per the WP:AN discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
@Strangesad: It generally means that any articles whose primary topic is related to faith is off limits. Such as topics about prominent religious figures, biographies, artifacts, scriptures/literature, ect (not an all inclusive list). However, it doesn't usually cover subjects where faith is not a prominent theme. Such as Mitt Romney where he is religious but the primary theme is politics. However, Humanpublic would be prohibited from making edits about his religious even though he could reasonable edit the rest of the article. It's a judgement call and it's generally best to stay far away from the line.--v/r - T P 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that directed at me? I have no interest in righting great wrongs. I have an interest in pointing out what the sources say. But the "arrogance and hypocrisy" of certain editors makes that contentious. Humanpublic ( talk) 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages...." This ban specifies articles. Humanpublic ( talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The way I read it, the policy states:
So discussions that take place on talk pages related to weather are banned, unless the ban stated excluding talk pages. History2007 ( talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion. The ban is intended to include any edit related to faith and religion, regardless of namespace. Of course, if you choose to appeal the ban in a few months time, this does not preclude you from referring to the topic, but only to the extent which is necessary to support your appeal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
As there seems to be a lot of confusion about AN, may I point out that discussions on AN are never votes. The closing admin may very well decide for a different solution than the solution most users have supported. (This has nothing to do with Humanpublic in particular, it's just the way AN works. Just thought I'd specify it as I see some users writing as if they believe it was a vote). Jeppiz ( talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
HI Humanpublic, I've removed the case request you made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, primarily because you posted it there more than 5 hours ago and haven't edited it since. If you do wish to make a case request regarding yourself or about the topic more generally please review the guide to arbitration before making another request. If you have any questions feel free to post them here or on your talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In this edit you have again recklessly used the term dishonesty about other editors. Your behavior is inexcusable. Based on your previous statement about "cherry picking" there, in my post there I specifically made the statement: "Have I "cherry picked" sources? If so, show it not just hypothesize it, imagine it and then state it". You have shown nothing with sources, but generated insults. You have zero sources, as usual, but are long on accusations and insults. You must stop this. Now. And you have discussed the article ""The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsu" which involves Christianity, as well as the discussion of the argument from silence which involves Judeo-Christian issues. It seems that you have thrown the topic ban to the wind, along with other policies. History2007 ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=I didn't violate my topic ban. No diffs were provided. I don't think saying a use of surces is dishonest is a personal attack, but I can certainly replace the word "dishonest" with "misleading" if that is deemed superior. Agin, no diffs were provided by the admin, so I can't be very specific.
Humanpublic (
talk)
15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)}}
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please think about whether you really want to call people Nazis, as you did here. There's been an unfortunate outbreak of this sort of discourse on Wikipedia, and we should try to stop it. Jehochman Talk 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Humanpublic, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 04:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to quit in disgust, but I can't resist asking why there is no appeal option. I'm not Minorview. I've never met Minorview (I've met Strangesad). It would be very strange if we had the same IP, although not impossible, since I don't have my own IP. Why is there no appeal template? Humanpublic ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
How do I appeal? Humanpublic ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was going to expire in a month.
Humanpublic (
talk)
23:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
They blocked Minorview for a month, and you permanently, on the theory that you are Minorview and therefore they're not really blocking you permanently. Strangesad ( talk) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Still sockpuppetting. Nobody's caught me yet..... Humanpublic ( talk) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
quitting this facade for the promotion of Christianity, and the egos of admins. Humanpublic ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Basket Feudalist 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
"...facade for the promotion of Christianity"? You've got to be kidding. This website has been alleged to be controlled by atheists, homosexuals, religionists, porn-purveyors, left-wing radicals, right-wing radicals, any ethnic group you can name, and even the "circumcision cabal" (I kid you not), and a host of other lobbyists. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to vanish, please follow the instructions here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You have requested that your account be vanished, however since doing so you have continued to involve yourself in several ongoing content disputes. An editor who vanishes is expected to refrain from involvement in the issues which led them to request vanishing. If you have changed your mind and wish to continue editing Christianity-related articles, you should contact the bureaucrats and withdraw your request for vanishing. If you still wish to be vanished, you should probably refrain from entering new disputes like the one on Talk:Argument from silence. -- LWG talk 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
On a totally unrelated note, while looking at your edit history I noticed that you said almost a year ago that you believed this article was copy/pasted from another source. Did you have any idea of what the source was so we can look into copyright concerns? -- LWG talk 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that you have been indefinitely banned from editing articles related to faith and religion, broadly construed, as per the WP:AN discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
@Strangesad: It generally means that any articles whose primary topic is related to faith is off limits. Such as topics about prominent religious figures, biographies, artifacts, scriptures/literature, ect (not an all inclusive list). However, it doesn't usually cover subjects where faith is not a prominent theme. Such as Mitt Romney where he is religious but the primary theme is politics. However, Humanpublic would be prohibited from making edits about his religious even though he could reasonable edit the rest of the article. It's a judgement call and it's generally best to stay far away from the line.--v/r - T P 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Is that directed at me? I have no interest in righting great wrongs. I have an interest in pointing out what the sources say. But the "arrogance and hypocrisy" of certain editors makes that contentious. Humanpublic ( talk) 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages...." This ban specifies articles. Humanpublic ( talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The way I read it, the policy states:
So discussions that take place on talk pages related to weather are banned, unless the ban stated excluding talk pages. History2007 ( talk) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the confusion. The ban is intended to include any edit related to faith and religion, regardless of namespace. Of course, if you choose to appeal the ban in a few months time, this does not preclude you from referring to the topic, but only to the extent which is necessary to support your appeal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
As there seems to be a lot of confusion about AN, may I point out that discussions on AN are never votes. The closing admin may very well decide for a different solution than the solution most users have supported. (This has nothing to do with Humanpublic in particular, it's just the way AN works. Just thought I'd specify it as I see some users writing as if they believe it was a vote). Jeppiz ( talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
HI Humanpublic, I've removed the case request you made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, primarily because you posted it there more than 5 hours ago and haven't edited it since. If you do wish to make a case request regarding yourself or about the topic more generally please review the guide to arbitration before making another request. If you have any questions feel free to post them here or on your talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
In this edit you have again recklessly used the term dishonesty about other editors. Your behavior is inexcusable. Based on your previous statement about "cherry picking" there, in my post there I specifically made the statement: "Have I "cherry picked" sources? If so, show it not just hypothesize it, imagine it and then state it". You have shown nothing with sources, but generated insults. You have zero sources, as usual, but are long on accusations and insults. You must stop this. Now. And you have discussed the article ""The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsu" which involves Christianity, as well as the discussion of the argument from silence which involves Judeo-Christian issues. It seems that you have thrown the topic ban to the wind, along with other policies. History2007 ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC){{
unblock|reason=I didn't violate my topic ban. No diffs were provided. I don't think saying a use of surces is dishonest is a personal attack, but I can certainly replace the word "dishonest" with "misleading" if that is deemed superior. Agin, no diffs were provided by the admin, so I can't be very specific.
Humanpublic (
talk)
15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)}}
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please think about whether you really want to call people Nazis, as you did here. There's been an unfortunate outbreak of this sort of discourse on Wikipedia, and we should try to stop it. Jehochman Talk 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Humanpublic, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 04:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to quit in disgust, but I can't resist asking why there is no appeal option. I'm not Minorview. I've never met Minorview (I've met Strangesad). It would be very strange if we had the same IP, although not impossible, since I don't have my own IP. Why is there no appeal template? Humanpublic ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
How do I appeal? Humanpublic ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was going to expire in a month.
Humanpublic (
talk)
23:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
They blocked Minorview for a month, and you permanently, on the theory that you are Minorview and therefore they're not really blocking you permanently. Strangesad ( talk) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Still sockpuppetting. Nobody's caught me yet..... Humanpublic ( talk) 20:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)