User talk:71.190.0.236

Previous account
Under which account or IP have you edited before? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

3RR
You just broke WP:3RR diff. It's obvious that you're aware what edit-warring means; when my Christmas-dinner is over I'll post a report on you at the noticeboard. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You broke WP:3RR yourself.  You reverted AT LEAST FOUR TIMES in a 24 hour period.  But somehow it's ok when you do it, and a lazy careless Admin who reviews these whiny hypocritical complaints from (true) edit-warriors such as you just go by your version (and omission) of things, only because you were the first one to issue the complaint. You see it there,  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!   But there's no question when looking at the edit history of the article that you went beyond three reverts in a 24 hour span.  So...Josh...sauce for the goose.  71.190.0.236 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Temporary suspension of editing
Your editing has become disruptive. Take a break. Tom Harrison Talk 18:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Listen please, Tom Harrison. Joshua broke WP:3RR himself first and you do nothing about that...and double standards are also (supposedly) against WP policy.   He reverted AT LEAST FOUR TIMES in a 24 hour period.  But somehow it's ok when he does it, and you as an Admin (bluntly speaking), not carefully checking the edit history of who exactly did what, just because the one who edit-warred first is the first to tattle and make the complaint?)  So his violation of 3RR gets overlooked or not even known by you?


 * Admins (many times sad to say) who review these whiny hypocritical complaints from (true) edit-warriors such as Joshua (he clearly violated 3RR first, just check) just go by THEIR version (and omission) of things, only because they are the first ones to issue the complaint. You can see it there.


 * But there's no question when looking at the edit history of the article that Joshua went beyond three reverts in a 24 hour span. So...Tom...sauce for the goose?  Why is his explicit and clear violation not cared about by you, and you block me for half a day?   Can't have double standards and inconsistency here.  Having it both ways.  71.190.0.236 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Learn to count. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Joshua, I counted. Carefully. You removed my stuff FOUR TIMES in less than 24 hours.  Even if it wasn't the same exact stuff.  (The Mark 16 appendix for example).  You just removed whatever you didn't like, that I did.   And also, as far as that specific section, you think that because a quasi MEAT PUPPET type editor did a WEASEL-ISH TAG-TEAM thing...and that he did one of the other reverts FOR you today gets you off the hook completely??


 * Four times my edits were removed by you (in general) and five times all together, with the help of the other editor "RegentsPark" in less than 24 hours, and the SPIRIT of the policy of "edit-warring" with this TAG TEAM JERKY stuff five times (mostly done by you) was clearly violated. Yet somehow you think that you didn't violate 3RR.   Won't fly.  Especially when you reverted me four times, in less than a day, and also when the very last revert was done by (hum again) you...even removing of the VASTLY TRIMMED and modified edit that I did.  Have trouble with the sources, then modify, don't remove.


 * I was reverted at least five times all together in less than 24 hours. Four times by you.    And it's weasely to get or when another editor does that fourth one of that same section (JUST SO YOU CAN TECHNICALLY GET OUT OF THE CHARGE OF "3RR VIOLATION" of that specific section).  Fail....   And if you go by what you did last night to today, you yourself reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours.


 * Check em....


 * 05:40, 26 December 2021‎ Joshua Jonathan talk contribs‎ 33,139 bytes −5,898‎ Reverted 6 edits by 71.190.0.236 (talk): WP:UNDUE: essay-like interpretation of primary sources undo Tags: Undo Twinkle Reverted


 * 09:09, 26 December 2021‎ Joshua Jonathan talk contribs‎ 33,499 bytes −5‎ →‎Gospels and Acts: moved info downwards; ce undo


 * 08:05, 26 December 2021‎ Joshua Jonathan talk contribs‎ 33,504 bytes −5,533‎ →‎Resurrection appearances of Jesus and interpretations: WP:UNDUE repetition undo


 * 16:30, 26 December 2021‎ RegentsPark talk contribs‎ 33,540 bytes −5,532‎ Undid revision 1062145234 by 71.190.0.236 (talk) Excessive use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Feel free to rewrite without direct reference to translations of the bible undo Tag: Undo


 * 17:19, 26 December 2021‎ Joshua Jonathan talk contribs‎ 33,540 bytes −2,743‎ still undue; still lousy sources and WP:OR, as explained at talk undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted


 * You see. It's there.  Five times reverted.  Four times by you.  In general.  In less than 24 hours.   But double standards and hypocrisy and inconsistency are of course (lol) NOTHING NEW on Wikipedia.   Not always does it happen.   But it is a problem with admins at times.  Too often.  Depending who an admin thinks has more "clout" or whatever, regardless of rules, regulations, and policies.   In other words, not always is there true "equal protection under the law" regardless of "status" etc.    I admit I broke 3RR, Josh.   And for that I'm sorry.  I try hard to adhere to Wikipedia policy.  But you broke it too.   It's fairly obvious.


 * Also, by the way, WP policy says clearly that "edit-warring" is NOT JUST violating "3RR". There are other ways to edit-war...which you clearly did.   In reverting me all the time, even good-faith mods and trimmings, etc...


 * And also yeah you did go beyond three reverts in 24 hours, if you count that other removal you did of the "Mark appendix" thing.  You just constantly arrogantly disrespected my edits and additions not for real valid WP reasons (with your gas about "undue" and "essay", which is all subjective stuff many times) but simply because YOU DIDN'T LIKE OR WANT IT.


 * But if someone else breaks the policy, like you clearly did, reverting me four times in less than 24 hours in general, and five times with the help of the other editor, then it becomes (I'm only human) why should I? And if I get blocked, then shouldn't the other edit-warrior (which you definitely are) be blocked also?  I mean really,  Joshua Jonathan.


 * Sometimes that has happened (I've been a Wikipedian who has edited and created pages for almost 12 years), but many times it doesn't.


 * You removed my hard-work good-faith sourced edits and valid contextual arguably needed additions FOUR TIMES in less than 24 hours. Not caring that this is a WIKI.  And you don't own the article.   Because of uptight arrogant "I don't like" reasons.   Even the stuff that was "repetitive" was NOT exactly what was said before.  But the new stuff about "interpretations" belongs in an article with the name "appearances" of Jesus' post-resurrection.  You violated 3RR no matter what your misinterpretations want to believe or the weasely junk that happened.  You definitely (without question) edit-warred. FOUR TIMES YOU REMOVED MY STUFF...and I was reverted FIVE TIMES altogether.  In less than 24 hours.    But it's been obvious since last night, that that's par for your course.   Learn to count.   You disrespected or ignored the fact that this is (supposedly) a WIKI...and NO ONE OWNS ANY ARTICLE.   But you acted like you did and bullied, and with the help of your enablers.  Ciao.... 71.190.0.236 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 09:09 and 08:05 was a consecutive series of edits; 09:09 was an improvement of your edit. You re-i serted three times, not bothering to turn this into a real reference, despite a notification at the talkpage, and a tag, which you even removed. And you admit you've edited Wikipedia before, without disclosing under which username or IP. After twelve years, you should know how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said myself, Joshua Jonathan, it wasn't all the same thing, and it's true that the Mark appendix thing you ALLOWED LATER even though you removed that at first too.  But I also said that WP policy says clearly that there is more than one way to "edit-war" than simply claiming that you technically stayed within 3RR (by using a tag-team partner or by removing something ELSE), and by using the excuse that the stuff you removed was not all the same exact stuff.


 * At first, in your very first revert, you ALSO removed the MARK APPENDIX MATTER in the beginning...in one fell swoop. In that first revert of my stuff that you did.


 * Nice that you put it back or moved it.  It all dealt with the same basic issue of "form and nature".   The whole "other form" in the appendix of Mark stuff that I put was deleted by you completely.   As far as the same exact thing, that was removed three times by you and once by the other editor, in less than 24 hours.   The other thing, the Mark appendix matter, counts too.  As it involves the same issue.   But at least a little later you allowed it even though you moved it...which is a modifying.  Fine....


 * But I also said in my previous comment here that you yourself did not remove the SAME thing four times in 24 hours.


 * But FOUR THINGS IN GENERAL of my work, in less than 24 hours, violating the spirit of the policy undoubtedly,


 * and also four times (in less than 24 hours) the SAME thing was removed with the help of the tag-team partner "RegentsPark",


 * which also (if you read the WP drift on these things) is not exactly in line with cool corroboration, and is kind of weasely to be able to say that an editor technically didn't violate 3RR.


 * Yes, YOU technically (in a way) kept to 3RR, but you only got out of that because out of nowhere "RegentsPark" did that fourth revert FOR you.   Tag team stuff is just a sly way to avoid a charge of technical violation.   That's been known forever on Wikipedia.


 * And again, Wikipedia says explicitly that "edit-warring" is NOT JUST violating "3RR", as you reverted me nonstop in general, stuff you obviously didn't like, but was sourced (maybe not the best sources) and didn't even care to improve the section or paragraph, but just wholesale deleted them. Because (just your opinion) didn't want it in THIS article.  Even though it arguably belongs there, when the word "appearances" of Jesus is in the name of the article.  You just got rid of everything altogether.  Not caring about MODIFY and to not remove...type recommendations.   But again, it could be argued that you broke 3RR by deleting my work in general four times in less than 24 hours with the other editor's help.


 * So even if with WIKI-LAWYERING you can say that you barely technically yourself didn't break 3RR, you did at least kind of edit-war here, without doubt.  And that's the only reason I broke 3RR.  Even though I should have resisted the temptation, and should not have.  Regards.  71.190.0.236 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)