Bdub2018
Welcome!
edit
Hello, Bdub2018, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
- Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- The Signpost, our newspaper.
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. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Referencing
editYou might try wp:RefToolbar/2.0 to add references. It uses wp:templates such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. If available, please add a ISBN or ASIN. Cheers and welcome! Jim1138 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
edit- Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
- "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.
Reformulated:
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
- Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
- We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
RSN notice
editThere is a discussion about your edits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gospel of John. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Bdub2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My intention was not to reshape Wikipedia to reflect my idiosyncratic religious views. There were some articles that I felt were unbalanced and full of opinions and speculations when actual historic evidence was being ignored, and I felt those could be used to improve the articles to make them more neutral. The documents are Christian and religious in nature, and so there are not just secular viewpoints. I did not realize that ancient writings on Wikipedia were considered primary, not secondary sources, and so I was treating them as secondary sources. It was a mistake, but an honest mistake, and not the malicious intent some of the other Wikipedians have tried to ascribe to it. Nor did I understand "Personal Research" to mean anything more than introducing novel interpretation of sources. I perceived that views I expressed were not novel, but 2000 years old, though I realize that I had inadvertently done so in a way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy regarding ancient sources, which I understand better now and am willing to follow.
My intention for the second account was not to escape scrutiny, but because the particular editor (my accuser, Tgeorgescu) seemed to be hounding all my edits and targeting me specifically with policy bombing, targeting virtually all my edits for reversion across multiple pages, making exaggerated claims against me and my intentions, speaking of "de facto" banning me, but leaving in the reverted edits content and sources he was telling me were supposed to be banned (such as quoting from ancient sources relevant to the topic), saying I was removing reliable sources when I had removed dead end sources, and added multiple reliable sources in place. You can see administratively that I had stopped making edits to Wikipedia articles once I realized they had come under scrutiny, and was trying to ask questions understanding why the policies state things one way but editors were saying another (in fact, I never again made any edits to actual articles with this account, but kept to talk pages). I received a lot of hostility, and felt like I was being railroaded. I felt he was trying to game the system and revert my edits in bad faith, kept saying I was deliberately trying to break the rules, that I was probably a banned user that had come back (I am not), etc, basically accusing me of being a sockpuppet for a banned user, which I wasn't, instead of explaining clearly discrepancies I was asking about (saying sources must be 50 to 100 years old, ancient writings are banned, etc. which I could not find stated in the policies). Just kept answering WP this and WP that, and moving the goalposts. I made no edits at that time. When I thought I understood the rules, my intention was to delete this account and open another for a fresh start, but I learned the account cannot be deleted. I felt that there was good reason to believe that all future edits were going to be specifically targeted by that editor. At John 1:1, you can see from the edit history from the other account that I was truly making a conscientious effort to remove my mistakes and properly construct the article. Even after being banned, the editor taunted me in my talk section saying "Mwuhahahahah" (I have removed it) and wrote in the Gospel of John talk page that I was clearly an old user who had returned to stir up trouble, which is not true in any way. When he asked for the checkuser, he said that they should check multiple accounts because he felt there may be more. I really felt that all this was done to attempt to railroad me into being banned (not to excuse my own wrongdoing in the way I used the account to defend myself). I am willing to work within the community and abide by the rules.
I did not intend to keep one account as a sockpuppet for another, but to replace it altogether. I was under the impression this in itself was not wrong. I admit that I used comments in defense of myself in the third person, because I felt I had good rationale to continue the edit according to policies I had been studying, and I admit that it was wrong and promise it will never happen again. For that, I am truly sorry. My intention is not to promote religious views. I am a stickler for history and facts, with a general distrust for speculations and opinions, and I don't care about opposing views, only that the facts are stated correctly and evidence is presented where it actually exists. That was the position I was coming from. I have not received any benefit of the doubt from the beginning about this. I am also new, and so my mistakes have not been intentional, except this one in John 1:1, where I defended myself in the third person. It was wrong, and again I apologize Bdub2018 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The Guide to appealing blocks says "Try to make it as easy as possible for the reviewing administrator to see why your block is not or no longer needed." When I look at your lengthy paragraphs, against JzG's brief and to-the-point explanation of the problem, I worry that if I unblocked you, you would continue this sort of weighty discussion elsewhere. Additionally, a checkuser holds private information that may be of importance when evaluating an unblock, which creates a further problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bdub2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am very sorry, and in the past few weeks I have felt ashamed for acting the way that I did in creating a sockpuppet account. It was dishonest and unethical and there were better ways to deal with the circumstances; I chose the wrong way and wish I hadn't. I violated both my long-held, core ethics and worst of all my Christian faith in doing so. I never had any intent to be disruptive; that was not my purpose for creating this account. I acknowledge I made editing mistakes, but truly, they were honest mistakes and I have now read policy carefully to make a conscientious effort not to repeat them, and to be concise. I have had a lot of time to think about it. Thank you for your time and consideration.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I think the Standard Offer is the best you're likely to get at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The reason for this block is twofold. First, you have consistently violated core content policies. Second, you have abused multiple accounts in order to continue doing so once your edits came under scrutiny (B.robertrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), CheckUser proven). Overall the inescapable conclusion is that you are not here to collaborate in the endeavour of building a neutral encyclopaedia reflecting the consensus view of qualified sources, but instead to reshape Wikipedia to reflect your idiosyncratic religious views. We appreciate your interest, but long experience indicates that this will only end one way. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)