Misplaced Pages

Your submission at Articles for creation

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Echo (Elephant).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi, sorry, did not want to get on your nerves, but those websites are not WP:RS in general and also subject to WP:LINKROT, so books by good publishers are better. Your statement was, however, correct. But per WP:V correct means very little and sources rule. I added an RS source anyway, and made it 4 pagars per WP:LEDE. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My sources seem reliable to me. Can you explain what's wrong with them? Yours, which I just found on google books, is about the literary and philosophical treatment of resurrection. Not the definition or actual possibility of resurrection. Strangesad (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All the book needs to say is that there are views which say it is impossible. So we actually agree on what there is to say, the question is attribution. www.uniformlaws.org is not RS for sure, given n publisher. NHS.UK is a medical site and using it is WP:OR given no mention of resurrection, etc. And they are all LINKROT items that may change tomorrow. The book I used was about Resurection. You can ask for further views on WP:RSN if you like. That is the easiest way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For your information

Discussion of your practices Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are currently involved in heavy edit warring at Resurrection of Jesus. Five different users have all spoken out against your proposed introduction, nobody has spoken for it. Despite this consensus, you continue to edit war and revert to your suggestion version for the fifth time. Please stopJeppiz (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Your continuous edit-warring is discussed at WP:ANI .Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. :-) You made the point about religion vs. principle very well. Humanpublic (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad, your editing style is giving me some cause for concern. You are oppositional and confrontational and seem to be positively enjoying the conflict. Your proposed ban for Jeppiz was the height of silliness. You have rejected warnings and requests from other people because they are involved, or not administrators. Well I'm an uninvolved admin and I'm letting you know that I find your editing style disruptive. If you continue in this vein I will block you. Learn to collaborate, or you editing privileges will be revoked. Kim Dent-Brown 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are you? Do you know what you're doing? You have never talked to me, never participated in any of the numerous threads, made no attempt to hear all sides that I'm aware of. Back off. My proposed ban for Jeppiz is a good idea. Just about every description of our dispute that he has given is a distortion. He is forum shopping, resurrecting issues that were just closed on ANI less than week ago, in the hopes of ensaring an admin just like you. Your comment above gives no diffs, and as far as I can tell, your different opinion about my proposed topic ban is not a rule-grounded basis for threats of blocks. If you disagree with the proposal,state your objection in the discussion. I don't care about your threats. Strangesad (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you whether or not you heed my warning, but this is not a topic for discussion. Edit more collaboratively or don't edit at all. Kim Dent-Brown 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am editing collaboratively. Jeppiz is not. Honestly, you haven't provided a single diff: how do you expect me to know what you're talking about? Strangesad (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not you who gets to decide whether or not your style is collaborative. Here are some diffs, as requested. (And by the way, this is not an invitation to a blow-by-blow rebuttal!)

• Accusing others of censorship
• Describing other editors as playing games
• Implying others cannot read
• Describing others as drama-seeking
• Bad faith call for topic ban
• Calling others dishonest
• Altering others' contributions as a closely involved participant

That's just what I found in the first page of contribs. None of these on their own is blockworthy; as a group, these edits define a combative and uncollaborative editing style. I'm sure there are even better examples, but the fact that more than 50% of your recent edits have distinct deficits is a telling point. Kim Dent-Brown 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You've made no effort to be even-handed, and the diffs above show nothing. You now seem to be searching around solely for diffs that confirm your bias. You are also violating AGF rather horribly. Go away. Strangesad (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hohum, sipping tea and mellowing out now... just an observation that if you had done nothing and let the ANI threads wind down, as other admins were doing, I probably would have spent the last hour returning to work on an article I've started. Instead, you made a bunch of accusations and threats, and I felt compelled to defend myself and complain about unequal treatment Just an observation about how admins influence where editors expend their energy. Strangesad (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For your information . Why keep on edit warring like this?Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)