User talk:Achar Sva: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:55, 13 January 2020

Gospel

Begoon, I deleted your addition without my user-name, you reverted it, and I re-deleted it. I tried to explain why in my edit summary but there wasn't really enough room. If you'd like to discuss further please start a new thread on the talk page of Gospel. Achar Sva (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care strongly enough about it to debate it. It seems to me that deleting information because you don't like the way it is formatted as a reference is a poor choice of action when you could just as easily fix the style or technical issues - but you obviously don't like the content. I'll leave your removal as it is - if anyone else disagrees they might reinstate it - I'm not really interested in a longer discussion. Thanks for the note anyway. -- Begoon 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I disagree with it? It's just that those footnotes are to alert the reader to the source of information in the article, and your note wasn't doing that. Another problem, though, is that the material you posted is irrelevant (or so it seems to me): the article is about the written gospels, not evangelism. You're welcome to put your views on the talk page. Achar Sva (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, just to be clear - it wasn't "my note" or "material I posted" - it was existing content. I just reverted your removal because I didn't think removal was the best thing to do. Now, armed with that information, and the knowledge that you say you don't disagree with it as content - proceed as you see fit. I'm afraid I have other things to spend my time on than pedantic little debates like this. My advice, as I've tried to make clear, is: if you disagree with the content, remove it, if you just disagree with how it's presented, fix that without removal. Thank you. -- Begoon 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, before you decide what to do, you should probably read WP:FOOTNOTE which, rather than your incorrect contention that "footnotes are to alert the reader to the source of information in the article", cleary explains that one of their functions is also "to provide explanatory information". -- Begoon 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify some terminology, by "footnotes" I mean a citations section, which some articles possess and many do not; personally I like to have this as a subsection of a references section, which contains both the citations and a bibliography; this works best for an article in which the citations are formatted as sfn. For footnotes properly so called I like to have a "notes" section. The separation can be seen in an article like Book of Daniel. Anyway, happy editing :) Achar Sva (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reversal of your edit.

The reason I reversed your edit was because alothough it its fringe it is one of many opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ex nihilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, come here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel#This_article_needs_heavy_improvement --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ex nihilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Glad to see you around. —Paleo Neonate – 03:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo: Yeah. It's a love-hate relationship :) Achar Sva (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

We had an agreement and a consensus on the talk page to include the scholars that challenge the consensus. You are being disruptive by edit warring and removing what we agreed on in the talk page. For the final time, STOP DOING IT. You will be reported for being a disruptive editor. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleMeNowPlease, we had no agreement, there was no consensus, and if you feel that a report is justified it's your right.Achar Sva (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about you. We, the editors of the page about Gospels, OVERWHELMINGLY agreed that these edits would be put in there. You need to respect the consensus that was reached on the talk page. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmingly? You and DJ Clayton agreed; DJ Clayton also agreed with the addition "conservative," which you ignored. And you removed text without even discussing it. That's not a consensus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am satisfied with how it is right now. I suggest we let it stay --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel concerned

Hello, we have crossed paths before on the Gospel article, and I have recently seen you on several other important Bible related pages. I took the liberty to look through your edit history, and I feel concerned that you are a single issue editor. I have seen a pattern of you specifically trying to go through Bible related subjects to make them sound much less reliable, remove much larger academic views, even when they are discussed to bring them up to what you consider reliable scholarship, which coincidentally happens to be almost always a very minimalist position, which would undermine most Christian beliefs. You have repeatedly used provocative, anti-religious language, even when no scholars would use the descriptor. You have used the word "fiction" to describe Bible stories, and called Islamic scriptures "folklore". As a Roman Catholic editor myself, I completely sympathize with the fact that people have different beliefs, but there is ample evidence that the edits you make are almost always aimed at promoting a much less minimalist position of the Bible, using completely irreverent language for other people's beliefs, and removing any opposing opinion. I understand that you will respond by saying that you only follow what scholars say, but that is demonstrably untrue, in both your interactions with me and in your use of childish, insulting and irreverent language against people's deeply held beliefs. As a Roman Catholic myself, I will not let Wikipedia turn into a place that promotes the Bible as mythology or people who are interested in promoting Biblical minimalism and disallowing any opposing views, even when cited. I have no problem with various scholarly views being in Wikipedia, but I have carefully observed the pattern, where you single out the Bible to remove most maximalist views and insert Biblical minimalism. This is single issue editing and I am completely opposed to this behavior. Before you respond by saying that you are merely trying to cite what scholars say... I highly doubt that it is merely a coincidence that the scholars you seem to stand by, almost without any exceptions happen to promote a more minimalist view. If I have missed something, I sincerely apologize. But I personally do not think that this bias has place on wikipedia. I personally believe that atheism is the most disgusting ideology to have existed and has no place in a happy and a free society, but I definitely will not go around trying to promote this view in Wikipedia. It is completely unprofessional--GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that atheism is the most disgusting ideology to have existed and has no place in a happy and a free society, but I definitely will not go around trying to promote this view in Wikipedia. - yeah, right; talking about a bias. See Encyclopédie: the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think" and for people to be able to inform themselves and to know things. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example. I have my views, but I try not to let my views influence how I edit. I demand the same from others. Look at their posting history. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleMeNowPlease: See WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no problem with mainstream scholarship. Calling a Biblical battle "fiction", even though, the category of fiction did not exist back then, has nothing to do with mainstream scholarship. It has everything to do with wanting to offend GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleMeNowPlease: It either did happen or it didn't happen. That's kind of simple. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For keeping-up the Enlightenment-Spirit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Achar Sva (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Begging for barnstars on article talk pages?

What's wrong with you? You don't ask people for barnstars on article talk pages. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where else would I beg for them? Forgive a moment of weakness. Achar Sva (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my views on how Wikipedia should approach Biblical scholarship

In Wikipedia, when addressing Biblical scholarship, we have a tradition of presenting the range of views, (typically ranging from maximalist views to minimalist views) then explaining where the scholarship generally leans and why, and also presenting notable scholars that have challenged the developing consensus. I realize that this it NOT always possible. I understand that certain theories, even when widely believed, are so fringe that we cannot entertain them as valid scholarship. I respect the fact that we cannot present Young Earth Creationism as a valid view in Biblical archaeology and that we cannot present Christ mythicism as valid New Testament scholarship, however, more often than not, we *can* present the range of views. In other words, your vision of Wikipedia which discusses the Bible as a disproven myth, Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, and anyone who dares disagree as an "ultra-conservative" loon, is totally at odds with my vision of Wikipedia. I am open to compromise, but remember, compromise must be coming from both sides... It should not be me compromising while you disregard any necessity for discussion with others. God bless GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleMeNowPlease: The problem is not your vision or my vision, but compliance with WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: That's just further obfuscation. Clearly, both sides feel that they are complying with the Policies and Guidelines. Often, the policies and guidelines excuse is given to simply portray the other side as unreasonable. This person has been documented making ideological changes and writing false statements. Almost ROUTINELY, this person changes the structure of articles that have been standing for years. I, on the other hand, usually have to go through weeks of discussion with other users when making even slight alterations. You personally, invariably take the side of the minimalist position, and simply default to saying that the other side is ignoring the policies, when that is demonstrably untrue. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoogleMeNowPlease: Actually Achar Sva is a quite experienced editor. And yes, he takes the minimalist position when that's the only position at WP:CHOPSY. If there are more acceptable positions in the mainstream academia, he renders them all. Yup, if mainstream academia has completely abandoned maximalist positions on certain issues, that's not his own fault. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Please, stop defending the inexcusable. This user is a known anti-Catholic bigot. He does not need help --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleMeNowPlease has been indeffed. Behaviorally, I think he is a WP:SOCK of Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 :::{{ping|GoogleMeNowPlease}} Actually Achar Sva is a quite experienced editor. And yes, he takes the minimalist position when that's the only position at [[WP:CHOPSY]]. If there are more acceptable positions in the mainstream academia, he renders them all. Yup, if mainstream academia has completely abandoned maximalist positions on certain issues, that's not his own fault. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 ::::{{ping|Tgeorgescu}} Please, stop defending the inexcusable. This user is a known anti-Catholic bigot. He does not need help --[[User:GoogleMeNowPlease|GoogleMeNowPlease]] ([[User talk:GoogleMeNowPlease|talk]]) 21:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
+:::::GoogleMeNowPlease has been indeffed. Behaviorally, I think he is a [[WP:SOCK]] of Wittgenstein123. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)