User talk:2John1verse3

Welcome to Wikipedia. Before making changes to controversial articles such as Peter Ruckman, please discuss edits on the article's talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John Foxe (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

response from farsight
It's not a matter of "carrying water "for the rcc", which is a pointless accusation as I could just as easily accuse you of carrying water for the anti-catholics. It's a matter of wikipedia policy and your edits violate wikipedia policy.  If not me that reverts your edits, any number of another million editors will.  Please at least read the guidlines I've been placing in the edit summaries when I revert.  There is a reason I am providing them - to show to you WHY your edits are unacceptable.  As I already explained, av1611reformation does not qualify as a reliable source.  It has no reputation for good fact checking or honest scholarship, and therefore CANNOT be used.  And even if that website were acceptable, a link to it's store only comes across as an attempt to sell stuff, which is also unacceptable.  If your reference is a book, then reference the book itself, not a link about a book. Though looking at the book, it appears to be an unacceptable source anyway, so there is no point. Nelson Turner is in no way an expert on the subject of the Jesuits. Continuing to re-add the info you are adding and the citation you are adding is considered contentious and disruptive editing around here and if it continues, you WILL be blocked from editing.

Furthermore, the article you are trying to add it to is about Jesuit CONSPIRACY THEORIES, not about the Jesuits themselves. This article concentrates on mythical and FALSE or baseless claims about the Jesuits. That's what a conspiracy theory kind of is. Trying to present your version of "facts" (which as a historian, I must say could be nothing further from facts) in an article that is about falsities only ruins the credibility of your claims. You could in the least try a different article - though it would still be contentious and disruptive editing there too.

Your info is not being "blocked for personal or party agendas". It is being removed because it in no way follows wikipedia guidelines and it is in no way accurate. You suggest that I'm trying to hide the truth or that the truth is being hidden from me, but the fact of the matter is that someone lied and made up this crap about the Jesuits and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

As for this article being useless to students of the subject - I find it is generally useless to everyone, which is why I plan to nominate the whole thing for deletion eventually. There is just not enough credible information out there on Jesuit Conspiracy Theories to properly source the article, though another editor has been doing good finding some. I'll wait and see if they find more. Also - there are no "students of the subject". Do you know of any college or university that offers degrees in "Jesuit Conspiracy Theories"? Of course not. So if you would do us both a favor and cut the attempts at fancy speech to make yourself sound smarter, that would be great. I am not so easily fooled by "big words". I don't tend to use them myself, but I sure as heck understand them.

Lastly, I reverted your edit to my talk page for two reasons - first, it was placed at the top, even above the section links, where it certainly doesn't belong because new posts go in new sections at the bottom of the page and second, because you deleted something that was already there. If you want to re-add it - in the PROPER place - I will certainly leave it there with little objection. That little objection, in case you were wondering, is the implication that I am some shill trying to hide the truth from people. Such accusations are generally not welcome at wikipedia and you will find that you have a much easier time around here if you, as the wikipedia policy is so named, "assume good faith".Farsight001 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're trying to say to me on my talk page, but it was again in the wrong place. I will say again that new discussions GO AT THE BOTTOM IN A NEW SECTION.  It would also be helpful if you would not be so intentionally cryptic.  Thanks.Farsight001 (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for at least trying to start a new section this time. For the future, there is a "new section" tab that you can use.  It didn't quite work because you didn't use proper coding - which is not a big problem.  Its a unique system.  No first time user understands it right away.  Now to the subject.


 * 1) Nelson Turner is in no way qualified. He has no credentials related to any such subject.  He is not a historian.  He does not have qualifications pertaining to conspiracy theories.  He is not a Jesuit.  There is nothing about him that makes him an expert on the subject.  He considers himself one, yes.  But that is not enough.  Nor is having a richly referenced audio series.  People can deceptively quote on purpose.  I once saw an anti-Catholic take a quote of a pope which was "I am not God", and replace the "not" with an ellipses so that it looked like "I am...God".  It was a complete and utter reversal of meaning with nothing but malicious intent.  How do we know Turner is not doing similarly?  Here at wikipedia, we base such probable honesty or deception on the respect the person gets from experts in the field.  Turner is in no way respected by experts in the field, and therefore is not an acceptable source.  If you think there is a problem with that, then you need to justify your inclusion of him as a source before you add it.  When in doubt, discuss it on a talk page first.  Wikipedia is not in a hurry.  People can and do discuss the preference of a single word over another for a month before patiently coming to an agreement and changing the article.  If you are really really convinced that Nelson Turner is a reliable source, then there is a page you can go to to ask administrators and mediators to evaluate the source.  If they say it is acceptable, then I would have no choice but to allow its use.  That noticeboard is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard  Tell them about Turner, link to the webpage, and see what they say.


 * 2) You used a book review. Proper citations would have been to the book itself, with page number and everything, not to a website mentioning said book.  This is basic high school level citation method.  If you cannot figure out how to do this, then perhaps, and I mean no offense, you should figure out how before you edit.


 * 3) Having a radio show in no way makes a person qualified for anything. Nor does having a guest make a person an expert on the same subject on which that guest is an expert in.  Comedian Stephen Colbert has had Obama on his show.  By YOUR logic, he would therefore be qualified to be president simply because a president has been on his show.  That is ludicrous.


 * 4) One book does not make an expert. People write books all the time on subjects on which they are not experts.  If I wrote a book on theoretical physics and stuck in 150 citations, am I therefore automatically an expert on theoretical physics?  Of course not.  The pope has written dozens of books on Christianity with thousands of total citations, but you would never suddenly consider him an expert on Christianity because of that, would you?  Of course not.  So cut the double standard.


 * 5) Claiming that your material was vandalism was done because you were not listening to my other suggestions and I upped the ante in an attempt to get your attention better and take my warnings seriously, which you obviously have not done. No, your edits were not actually vandalism.  However, they are disruptive by wikipedia's definition of disruptive, and as such, I, along with anyone else, can delete them freely without fear of repercussion.


 * 6) I say again - the Jesuit Conspiracy Theory article is for CONSPIRACY THEORIES, which are things that are generally UNTRUE. If you consider this information to be "fact" then this article is, by definition, the wrong place for the info.  Only were you to consider the stuff you keep trying to add to be FALSE would it belong here.


 * 7) I am in no way trying to win one for the Catholic Church. I am applying wikipedia policy here.  I know it makes things more difficult for you, but frankly, that's not my problem.  If playing soccer, would you suddenly complain that you and you alone are not allowed to use your hands and then claim that it is unfair and you really really want to win?  No.  You would follow the rules.  If playing chess, would you try to convince your opponent that the king should be able to move as a queen does because you really think you deserve to win?  No.  You would follow the rules.  Likewise on wikipedia, you do not get to circumvent policy just because you really really want this info in the article.  Following policy is more difficult, but if you follow policy, you will actually get somewhere.  If you don't, then you will get nowhere.  In fact, when a person refuses to play by the rules in attempting to fix what they perceive as pov in an article, they are typically blocked and the article winds up even "worse" than they thought it was before.  If you don't want that, then I highly suggest that you FOLLOW POLICY.


 * 8) I am not trying to make the Church appear immaculately conceived. Do you see me whitewashing the inquisition or crusade articles?  Delete the Catholic sex abuse article?  No?  Then clearly I am not trying to make the Church appear all white and shiny.  Is it not possible that you are simply mistaken about this issue?  That perhaps I am right in that Turner has no idea what he's talking about?  If you are not even open to the possibility of being wrong, then you won't get anywhere here.


 * So please, please, please, chill out, relax, and follow the rules. I have come across several past editors who act just as you have and I give this very same mini speech to all of them.  None of them ever listen and every single one of them end up blocked or abandon their accounts.  For your edification, I include links to their pages.  Don't wind up like them.  I really don't want another account blocked simply because they were too proud to follow the rules.  Remember Jesus' words in reference to the rule makers, which I paraphrase - follow the rules of those in charge, for they are only there by the will of God. The accounts, not including numerous IP addresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solifugae, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soidi , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amish_01 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colin4C , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MainBody#Catholic_Church , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Remind_me_never , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hop_goblin ,and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biblelight  That last one actually hunted down as much private info on me as he could find and published it on his website to get people to harass me.Farsight001 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jesuit conspiracy theories, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.