User talk:96.22.215.70

Welcome to Wikipedia
 — Soap  —  00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On Refactoring
You are free to undo my refactoring, but please find a way to organise your thoughts in a way that pother editors are not confronted with multiple sections that pertain to the same discussion. Meanwhile, I have rolled back your restoration. Note that editors use the content box for page navigation, and it gets confusing if you create a new section every time you add a comment that is essentially on the same point. Feel free to disagree with me and all that, but try to keep the navigation simple as a basic principle. Also, it is usually considered bad wikiquette to use boldface or allcaps in a discussion, no matter how aggrieved you feel. You can usually get your point across without such tactics. If you need any help, feel free to ask me. Cheers, Eusebeus (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Uncle, Please take the time to read Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
I have twice reverted your recent edits at Gospel of the Hebrews. Please note the following items of Wikipedia policy: I realise that I have probably reverted the page to the wrong version. Nevertheless, you may wish to (a) take a break and get some new ideas for getting consensus on this page, and (b) maybe work on some other articles for a while to allow other editors to get their heads around your side of the argument. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Controversial major edits should first be proposed at the relevant talk page, where consensus should be obtained.
 * 2) A neutral point of view is required for all articles, regardless of their topic or the sources underlying them.
 * 3) Continued attempts to revert to your preferred version of the article may result in you being blocked.


 * Also, I'm not "Eusebeus", who I assume is an editor you've had a disagreement with. I'm an otherwise uninvolved editor who came to this through your comments on Tim Song's user page. You've now made three reverts and further reverts will constitute a breach of the WP:3RR policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have already apologized to Eusebeus. It was an honest mistake. NB I made three edits and was going to make more, some of which I hoped would win over Eusebius. But I don't think I made 3 reverts. As you may have noticed we are in the middle of an edit war. I think the article should be reverted to the edition before the war began and yes take a break. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I miscounted your last edit at the time I made the above message; I assumed it was a revert but it was in fact not. So apologies for that mistake.  In any case I'm not interested in watching this article long term so you've heard my points above, you know this is a contentious article, and I'll leave you to work out a consensus with the other editors.  I should note that the the version you keep reverting to is simply not written in an encyclopedic style; regardless of how many sources you find you just can't make claims like "the most important" because they're inherently subjective. Thank you anyway for your politeness and civility throughout. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked you edit hist. and block log and it is clear you are a good faith editor. Your advice is sound. The problem I have is that the bibliography is being stripped important books. What to do?? 96.22.215.70 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)