User talk:GBRV

GBRV (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spaces under headings

There should not be any line spaces under headings unless there are two heading in a row. It is undesirable to add them, because it makes edit screens more difficult to read. There should be one space above headings however, as the WP:MOS/layout says "Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Jeppiz (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

edits...

hi. Per talk and agreement by PiCo, and collaboration, I put in this edit right here. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. GBRV (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey

It took me time to realize, but I am starting to see that there is a very good argument for Judaism. Sadya goan (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

edit commentaries

hello. I normally don't bother with this, but I know that you have an interest in articles such as this. There is one in particular that was missing a very important verse (where frankly I was kinda surprised that it was not already in the article). The Bible and slavery" article. I added a good (and sourced) paragraph the other day, but my stalker "Jeffro77" is in the habit (because of "watchlist" and extreeeme personal bias, malice, and animus, and arrogance) likes to diss and second-guess valid, accurate, sourced additions, and edits, due mainly to his admitted anti-Bible position and his hatred for me. I warned him a number of times to stay away from me, and my edits, and not to "hound" me as that is against WP policy, but there was this one Admin who was horrendous herself with me too, recently, and of course she only made things worse. (Most Admins are not quite like her though.) Anyway, I'm not in the mood to wrangle too much regarding this article. Though I won't tolerate the removal of this sourced paragraph that was added, nor the removal of Exodus 21:16 from the article. WP policy is to "modify" instead of wholesale deleting. But when there's obvious bias and ill-will from certain editors, that generally won't happen. But check out the edit here and if you want to add your thoughts, you're free to do so. I appreciate your consideration to this, though I really do hate bothering you about it. But click here. 71.183.131.104 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Merger : I can get involved in that article if needed, but it might be best to lodge a complaint against Jeffro for hounding and trying to exercise ownership over articles in which he has an admitted agenda. Right now, these articles are controlled by a cabal of atheists who will never concede a single point, no matter how basic. GBRV (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF. And in my experience, most religious articles fail NPOV as they are slanted towards that particular religion, whatever it is. This isn't true for all of them of course. A typical example, the first I looked for just now, is Abraham. Read the infobox - it presents his birth and death places and family as fact. Sure, the lead presents a more NPOV version, but a lot of people are going to concentrate on the infobox. Sarah treats his wife as though everyone accepted her to be historical. Damn, it's even worse than I thought. It discusses whether archaeologists think she was really his sister, without even quoting an archaeologist. Again, that presents her as a real historical person. This is pretty typical for most religious articles as I've said. It's usually only the major ones where any views other than the religious pov are presented. I really should be doing other work, but I'll change the bit about archaeologists unless it can be well sourced.

As for hounding, following a problematic editor around is something a lot of good editors do and is not considered hounding. Gabby uses other accounts and IP addresses to edit, demonstrates ownership by the post above by stating they won't tolerate certain changes, etc. And of course Gabby is also calling an editor malicious, which is not acceptable. Doug Weller (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently became aware of this bit of canvassing. Gabby Merger likes to repeatedly claim that I have 'hounded' her. Actually, my interactions with Gabby Merger have been as a result of 1) her editing articles that are already on my Watch List, 2) review of her recent edits after obvious POV issues in articles on my Watch List, and (to a lesser extent) 3) other editors mentioning Gabby Merger's inappropriate conduct toward me. WP:HOUND quite clearly indicates that reviewing an editor's contributions for problematic behaviour is not 'hounding'. ("Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.") In all instances of reverting Gabby Merger, I have provided specific reasons. On the other hand, Gabby Merger has on several occasions harassed me at my User Talk page at length, even after being asked repeatedly to stop, and also explicitly stated that she has intended to hound me as a deliberate retributive action. I see also that Gabby Merger as again claimed here that I have "admitted anti-Bible position and his hatred for" her, still with no evidence. Although I don't believe the Bible is a magical book, I don't really know what it would mean to be "anti-Bible", which sounds like a fairly naive and simplistic approach to consideration of any literature. GBRV, it would be unwise to be complicit in Gabby Merger's false accusations.

I wasn't aware I was part of a "cabal of atheists". I wonder if this 'cabal' position pays well. I do hope so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what atheists are saying about Christ myth theory: "Right now, these articles are controlled by a cabal of Christians who will never concede a single point, no matter how basic." Do you get it now? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The quoted statement doesn't appear on the Talk page of that article, or in any recent edit summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem becomes clear when pretty much the same editors are assigned as belonging to both cabals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a reply for what GBRV stated above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that probably makes a little more sense. In the context of my remarks, it seemed like quite an odd response. Sorry for any confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Since these issues are already being discussed in other places, there's no need to expand it into my talk page as well. I'm replying to your comments on the other talk pages, because I'm not going to have the same debate in umpteen numbers of different places simultaneously. GBRV (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm posting a duplicate message to both GBRV and Inonit, since you are equal combatants in the current edit war at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. Please cease the edit warring and continue to seek consensus on this issue, even if an RfC is necessary to get enough participation for a consensus. If necessary, review Wikipedia:Edit warring, in particular the words: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. I will take both of you to WP:ANEW if that's what it takes to end this. Each of you has a clean block log; that's something worth protecting. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Census of Quirinius 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
You really do need to be careful given the earlier warnings. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Census of Quirinius page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Nativity of Jesus into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi GBRV

So you say you have consolidated my text off of two pages onto something else.

Where did you move the texts?

Or did you just trash the texts?

I would be glad to know what you have done with the texts.

Amazing that you did not trash the rest of the same section on the Star of Bethlehem page.

That certainly makes a very balanced and accurate presentation. (not really)

Of course balance or general accuracy does not seem to be the issue or the goal. True scholarship is the goal of all Wikipedia articles, of course.

:)

In a side note - I find it very interesting the Borg, Vermes, Sanders, Brown and others of their orientation count a lot more on the Wikipedia Christian religious pages than the Pope or ten thousand bishops (many of whom have one or more doctorates, run theological schools and deal with millions of parishioners). I am not even Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox. But since when do a few agnostic, atheistic, theologically liberal or generally unbelieving people have more to say about Christianity than about two billion Christians? (Of course many so called Christians actually do not practice, but even so, probably a good quarter of them are serious about their faith - that makes 500 million people).

I have come to the conclusion that most all the Wikipedia Christian pages are designed to denigrate the Christian faith with often repeated quotes from people that generally do not find Christianity to their liking so they want to change or eliminate it.

This is just a general observation about Wikipedia Christian religion pages.

It is also very interesting that a number of people (so called scholars) claim that the book of Luke was certainly written after 80 CE (and they even "know that"), but actually no one knows when or where it was written. Is this scholarship or simple imagination? It seems to me it is imagination. But I could be wrong. These folks have doctorates. Some people are wonderfully more intelligent than most of us idiots.

Yet any earthling can supposedly have an opinion or support an idea, which is important to them (except of course on Wikipedia Christian pages. They are reserved for certain special people only - they must not be earthlings - I suspect they must be gods).

Amazon customer57 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:RNPOV: history does not trump theology and theology does not trump history (they coexist, but each in its own realm). Wikipedia is about rendering the academic mainstream, see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazon customer57 - The plan is to consolidate this type of material in Census of Quirinius. It's already in lots of other articles besides "Star of Bethlehem", so I'm not purging the text from Wikipedia. You're trying to add it to yet another article. I agree that these articles tend to deliberately cast doubt on the Bible using dubious arguments - that's exactly what I have been pointing out for months - but one of the purposes of consolidating this stuff is to make it easier to improve the balance by discussing it in only one place rather than dozens of places. I can't carry on dozens of discussions at the same time, nor is there any need to have the same issue covered in depth in so many articles. I would gladly keep the portion that you personally added to "Star of Bethlehem" since I've added similar text to other articles, but it needs to be in one place. You can add it to Census of Quirinius and take part in the discussion going on there. GBRV (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Chronology of Jesus

Regarding this edit, I have two questions. Where specifically at Talk:Census of Quirinius is the discussion. And regarding the comment, "An anonymous user can't just undo this agreement", can you explain why your comment pertains to "an anonymous user"? I'm not concerned with whether the agreement is changed, but is there some reason you make a differentiation between anonymous and registered users? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

See my response on these points to Drmies at: [1]

GBRV (talk)

Unsourced, tendentious content Malleus Maleficarum

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. This content was discussed on talk page. You have reverted unreliable self-published sources and fringe to the lead section. Diff: [2] --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's standard practice to restore large amounts of sourced content if removed. Large removals show up like a red light in the logs. I see no evidence of self-published sources. One was labeled an encyclopedia of witchcraft or something along those lines, another was an academic journal. Do you want to bring me into this issue? GBRV (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to just point you to the [3] so that perhaps you can stop spreading some of the misinformation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spread any misinformation. Since you've also posted a note about this same subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I'll reply over there. GBRV (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, your request for support at WikiProject:Feminism could be construed as canvassing, which is normally against the rules. GBRV (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Total opposition

GBRV please don't be in total opposition to me. I am trying to be constructive. I appreciate your involvement in the project, but please make sure you are not overzealous. I will be happy to listen to your suggestions. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Golly gee, thank you very much for being willing to listen to my humble suggestions from time to time, your Highness. You sure you're not gonna just kick me out of the project? Maybe if I grovel enough you'll retain me for a little while longer?

You need to get a grip. Your edit history shows you've been absolutely obsessing over that one article for around two weeks now. You were already blocked once, and it's inevitably going to happen again unless you calm down a bit. Don't question academic sources just because your opponent(s) happen to be using them in an edit war. Don't canvass support for that edit war in places like WikiProject:Feminism, because canvassing during an edit war is against the rules (as far as I know) even if it might be allowed in some other circumstances. I already told you this yesterday. GBRV (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I will be glad to read about canvassing because I don't understand how it works. Therefore, I can't even tell if you are correct. You confuse obsession with dedication and increased activity due to some spare time. I just wanted to get it done, fast. Unfortunately, such unnecessary opposition like here: [4] and here doesn't help at all. I am following 1RR, don't accuse me of edit war. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please be straightforward, tell me why are you trying to render me ineffective. If you have suggestions regarding article, tell me. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding canvassing WP:APPNOTE (although I must say I wasn't familiar with that, will read all of it later). --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Malleus Maleficarum. Your edits appear to be disruptive.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Your revert diff [5], discussion that was ignored by you [6], your previous fierce involvement in the article's content: [7] and [8]

--Asterixf2 (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason you were placed under a 1RR restriction for that article is because you keep overhauling it without reaching consensus. This is why I reverted your recent attempt to repeat that behavior, which is exactly what I'm supposed to do. Posting an admin-style warning on my talk page is absurd. Stop doing that. GBRV (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminate reverts are totally unjustified. I have made comments on talk page at the time of commit providing justification. In my opinion, you shouldn't revert everything given my careful clarifications on talk page. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to gain consensus for your changes, which means working out an AGREEMENT with other people, not just giving your own personal justifications. This has been explained to you repeatedly before, and yet you never listen. Which part of "consensus" don't you understand? GBRV (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my opinion this kind of indiscriminate reverts constitutes blatant WP:OWN. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Many different people have reverted your changes in that article, and you've been warned by many different people. You know better than to accuse me of "ownership". Knock it off. GBRV (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't perceive you to be an uninvolved user (as noted above) but I am going to consider all your suggestions, especially any links to official policies. Note WP:OWN#Multiple-editor ownership However, your "many people" are civil pov pusher Ryn78, you and involved user Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) who was using vulgar slang on talk page. PS. Your revert violates consensus in my opinion (as I have noted on article's talkpage). Is Ryn78 the account you control or not? --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You were also blocked by Ritchie333, given a 1RR restriction by TParis, and opposed by many people at ANI. It isn't just me and a handful of other people, and I don't "control" all these people you've been fighting with. You keep insisting you have reached a consensus, but the talk page clearly shows that no agreement has been reached. You've basically argued that your own argument is irrefutable and this establishes consensus, which is silly. Look up the word "consensus". It looks like you've also continued canvassing at WikiProject Feminism, which you're not supposed to do. MShabazz told you to stop today, and you've been told that before as well. GBRV (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

1. You seem to avoid answering directly to the question. Is Ryn78 the account you control or not? 2. burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material For more see this. --Asterixf2 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

He answered your question rather directly "I don't "control" all these people." Casting aspersions, without evidence is considered a personal attack. If you have evidence that GBRV is a sockmaster then please start a case at sock puppet investigations, before you end up with another block. Also stop using article talk pages to comment on editor behavior. Take it to their talkpage or ani, if you're brave enough to try that again.--Adam in MO Talk 04:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you Adamfinmo. There were no aspersions. GBRV, is Ryn78 the account you control or not? --Asterixf2 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I already answered that, and I'm sick of your daily allegations against anyone and everyone who doesn't go along with your agenda. Do you want to be banned for making false accusations? And of course you also accused me of reverting the article without just cause, which is another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I reverted you for the same reason Adamfinmo reverted you, and for the same reason you were told by multiple people to work out an agreement. The talk page indicates there obviously hasn't been any agreement. Now go over there and actually discuss the matter, don't keep pounding the same issues on my page. GBRV (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"I don't control all these people" is quite different from "I don't control any of these accounts". You still have not answered the simple question. I acknowledge your refusal. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)