User talk:Doktorspin/Old Talk 1

Confusing faith with knowledge
No, thank you for the patience to keep going back and wading through all of that mess. It's easy for a third person to say "This is what should be done." The real accomplishment is for someone to follow through and do it. Especially if the third person makes it harder by getting exasperated and addressing the core issue directly, instead of having the patience to keep running a gauntlet of faux issues.

It's up to you wrt those Wildwinds cites - but personally I'd really recommend replacing them if you can't count on the links to be good. Otherwise you run the risk of someone being able to remove a nonworking or nonspecific link, then remove text as uncited. Just my opinion. Best regards, arimareiji (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Matthew and Luke's Nativity Accounts
I decided to write on your talk page about question why Luke has that the family going back to Nazareth while Matthew indicates that they went and made their home in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy. I will also try to present that it is not true that the two Gospel accounts present two conflicting narratives. Of course, it is only my opinion and others can disagree with me.

The events are in the following order:
 * First we have Luke's narrative (1.5-79) – Zechariah, Elizabeth, angel Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth before pregnancy, birth of John.
 * Matthew (1.18-25) – during Mary pregnancy angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream
 * Luke (2, 1-21) – census; Joseph with Mary go to Bethlehem to register. Mary gave birth there. She wrapped Jesus in cloths and placed him in a manger. The same day is Adoration of the shepherds. Circumcised is after eight days.
 * Mt (2, 1-12) – Magi visited Herod in Jerusalem and then, they have visited Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew says that in a house. Then the Magi returned to their country.
 * Luke (2, 22-39) – Forty days after birth, Jesus presented in Temple in Jerusalem. Simeon the Righteous and Anna the Prophetess. When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law, they returned to Nazareth.
 * Mt (2, 13-23) – Angel tells family to flee to Egypt because of coming massacre of innocents by Herod. They immediately flee. Return from Egypt & can't go to Judea due to Archelaus, so move to Nazareth.
 * Luke (2, 40-50) – child Jesus grew, became strong and was filled with wisdom. At the age of twelve Jesus at the Temple.

Now I must clear up something. It will be of course my opinion. Excuse me if I too much write at length on this topic, but I couldn't briefly. What is your opinion about this? Alorkezas (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they lived together she was discovered to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit (Mt 2:18). And before she was pregnant, she lived in Nazareth (Luke 1:26). So it means that Joseph was not the ownership of the house in Nazareth, it belonged to Mary family. And because in Bethlehem they were looking a room for them in the inn and they placed a newborn son in a manger, I believe that Joseph had no land neither in Bethlehem and lived only by his handicraft. And that's way Joseph travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for census – I think only the people who are not resident anywhere and have no land on which they can be taxed have to present themselves at their birthplace. And this manger was in a cave (Gospel of James 19.1-3; Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13.2; Arabic Infancy Gospel 1.6) just outside Bethlehem. Now why Matthew say “in a house”? Because contemporary houses were often a adapted appropriately caves in which part of space were for animals, and part for humans. Justin Martyr is saying that Christ was born in a cave and that the Adoration of the Magi was in that cave. About your question- Luke say they came from Nazareth to Bethlehem and return = it was for census, and Matthew say that made their home in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy = yeas, in his opinion it was fulfilling a prophecy, and after returning from Egypt due to Archelaus thay made their home in a house in Nazareth, which belonged to Mary family.
 * Quirinius was governor of Syria from 6 AD to 12 AD and absolutely not in the time of Herod the Great. But because Luke 1:5 to 2:52 was based on a hebrew text (see her) I believe that during the translation to Greek they made similar mistake like translating "rope through the eye of a needle" to "camel through the eye of a needle" (for Luke-18.25). In Aramaic, the word for "camel" (גמלא) is spelled identically to the word for "rope" (גמלא). For more information about that I can direct you only to italian and polish sources now. Sorry. But if so, than which governor of Syria was it? Gaius Sentius Saturninus (Tertullian, Against Marcion, book IV, 19).

Narratives in which are the same accounts as in Luke (going to Bethlehem for a census) and simultaneously as in Matthew (Magi, Massacre of the Innocents or Flight into Egypt) we have in Apocrypha (Gospel of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Arabic Infancy Gospel, History of Joseph the Carpenter, Latin Infancy Gospel). Even in writings of the Church Fathers we can find both accounts (for exemple Tertullian and Justin Martyr). So in my opinion, combining the events isn't unfounded. Of course, I absolutely agree that the stories are different, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the two accounts present two conflicting narratives. I just think Matthew and Luke's Nativity Accounts are complementary to each other.

Household? This for me is interpretation. But I say that you have right, Matthew leaves with no possibility to think that Mary was in Nazareth. This information we have from Luke. Why Matthew remain silent on this? For Mark and John suitable start of narative was baptism of Jesus. For Matthew it was his birth and that's way we have no particular information from him about what was before Christ birth (Mary in Nazareth, Joseph came to Bethlehem for a census etc.). But we shouldn't hold something against Matthew for that - he might just as well start the narrative from the baptism! It's Luke who decide to start narative about 15 month earlier (from Zechariah and the conception of John). You have also right that Nazareth doesn't come until 2:22-23. I think it is because Matthew wants underline that it was fulfilling a prophecy, so he mention the village not till it could be related to “He will be called a Nazarene" - because from now on Jesus will lived there until he will start preaching.

“Why must you force them together?” I really must say that at the beginning I believed that Matthew was fantasizing about almost everything writing the Nativity and that Luke maybe (maybe!) was true about his account. Over time reading other sources I change my mind, concessive that they accounts can be possible without conflict. Peace out.

P.S. Please see too my comment in Talk:Nativity of Jesus about “after 66 days”. Alorkezas (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that better reference to Leviticus would be 12:4 than 12:5

That according to Matthew they lived in Bethlehem and that they been in Nazareth only after returning from Egypt is a assumption based on that that the events described by him were directly alter and that they are the only events that have occurred in The Nativity of Jesus. But it is only a assumption. On the other hand we can assume that he didn't described the events directly alter and that he didn't wrote everything what has happened on the Nativity. Why we should assume the first supposition? Also, you wrote in footnote: The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue – I think Matthew's presentation does allow the reader to think so. It doesn't indicate, suggest or imply, but why doesn't allow?

About that reading Matthew's narrative in the light of Luke's creates a new narrative – it must not mean that the “new” narrative will be anywhere conflicted with the “old” narrative and it must not mean that it would not tell the truth. I will give a example when a comparison of sources can be useful: if we will only based on Suetonius (Tiberius 49.1) about Aemilia Lepida, we will find out that in the twentieth year after, Quirinius accused Lepida of trying to poison him. We must ask, “After what?” It's seems logic that “the twentieth year after the divorce”. But now if we will comparison this with Tacitus (Annals III, 22-23) we will find that Lepida (who was accused in AD 20) had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar, who died in AD 2. Quirinius could only after Lucius death married Lepida, not to mention divorced her, and so we have that 20 years. So it shows that based on Tacitus we should read Suetonius as “the twentieth year after the marriage”. Not to mention that we often read Suetonius in the light of Tacitus or Cassius Dio (or in other combination) about Tiberius, Claudius, Nero or the Year of the Four Emperors. Alorkezas (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiability? What about Apocrypha or that none of the Church Fathers denies them, eg that there was no massacre or flight to Egypt or a census?

We have Matthew's birth account (1.18-2.23) and telling only a one world more than him, ie that they could be a change of venue or that according to him Joseph lives in Bethlehem (Matthew nowhere says that), is a new narrative. The natural reading is that from Matthew we don't know in which place was the conception of Jesus or Joseph dream. Don't you agree that this could happened anywhere, not necessarily in Bethlehem? He speaks about married, thought of divorce, etc and then that After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea.... So reading the text it indicates that he isin't in conflict with Luke. Matthew's presentation of Galilee is of a new location, and the writer feels the need to justify the change of location - absolutely right. It is a new location in his Gospel but it mustn't mean that the Holy Family was for the first time there. I wrote above why I think Nazareth doesn't come at his book until 2:22-23

Maybe there isn't as much as 10% similar material, but it not prejudge about falsehood of one or both. Simply the Evangelists flash on different events that accord then. About Quirinius and manger I have sad above and in Talk:Nativity of Jesus. My “force to harmony” is only to show that accounts can be with no conflict. You know too that you can say that they conflict, but that would be after assuming they do and finding excuses where they don't. Alorkezas (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that we will not get any further. We will not have agreement about if according to Matthew the conception of Jesus was in the same place were birth. Maybe the last think that I will write is that the three statement (according to Mt Joseph lives in Bethleheml; takes Mary into his home; The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue) are only opinions, not facts. I don't agree with them and I think that will be all what I must say. Thanks for your comments on this subject. Alorkezas (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

 Bunderson

3RR Warning
I note that you have recently engaged in several reverts at Nativity of Jesus and I also disclose that another editor has come to my page to ask for my advice (as an uninvolved administrator) on this matter. Whilst I appreciate you have an opposing view on the correct dating etc at this article - I must as a matter of course caution you about our three revert rule - which will lead to your blocking on further occasions of this type of reversion anywhere on wikipedia. I do note that you were given some prompt about the 3RR situation by Johnbod at 2.06 January 5th in the edit summary of that same article. I would ask you to refrain from returning to this article with such edits please.-- VS talk 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Given Steve's note to you above, and the fact that the issue has yet to be resolved, I am hereby giving you notification that I will next be reverting your latest edit to Nativity of Jesus. Should an outside party determine the page ought to be changed to CE, I will accept it. Until that time, there is not consensus on the talk page for your change, hence my pursuit of the RfC process. I hope you regard this note for what it is, an act of courtesy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well nevermind. He took care of it already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice
Since you have resumed, I have reported your reverts at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. You might want to explain the importance of WP:IAR to them. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning
Hey Doktorspin, edit summaries such as this, this and this are remarkably uncivil and can result in a block on your account. Address content not editors is a good guide to follow so please tone it down - no matter how much you disagree with one or more of your colleagues.-- VS talk 10:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring
I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring on Nativity of Jesus, per your AN3 report. Toning down your edit summaries, per the comment above, would be a good idea too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette 20090215
You'll be interested in this, I imagine. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Please see the discussion at WP:WQA for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion; Edit Centric (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
 * Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
 * It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
 * Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

February 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.


 * Not ruling on the unblock request; all I would have done is alerted VS that you had self-reverted the edit you were blocked for, quickly... but he's already aware, so I'll leave it to you two to work things out.  As for the rest, I think you are having a hard time because when it comes down to it, consensus is pretty against the table.  On the talk page I saw several other editors object to the table for various reasons.  People raise the concern of WP:OR and OR by synthesis.  I don't think that argument is successful in arguing that the table cannot be included, because it contains no original observations, just a new presentation of the old observations.  The one argument, though, that sticks in my mind as the one that presents the greatest obstacle, is that several editors prefer not to include the table.  When it comes down to it, consensus rules.  The only way the table would make it in is if you manage to change people's minds about it.  If the discussion had been confined to Carl and yourself, I would suggest asking for outside opinions, but several outside opinions have already come in, and despite your suspicions, I believe those opinions are from users independent of this dispute.  Mango juice talk 19:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. You already know that I don't see that it is either OR or SYN, but I think now the best thing to do is present the issue at WP:ORN somehow neutrally.
 * As to the other commentators, I have noticed that several arrived at the nativity page solicited by Carl Bunderson. The claim of consensus has been constructed. Most appeared just once and have gone back to their own concerns. Functionally the conflict is confined to Carl and myself. There are just so many ways I can ask for constructive criticism. I've been in an edit war before, but it really was editing: the other editor despite understandable resistance actually showed some response to my "intrusion", so there was some above-board antagonism, which I think led to some compromise resolution. As far as I'm concerned I've seen no effort to resolve the current conflict.
 * Thanks again for the time. --  spin control 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on how the other people were asked; see WP:CANVAS. In any case, soliciting unbiased opinions is not a bad thing; you could try an WP:RFC... but I'd start by trying to find one editor who supports your table besides yourself.  When there are really only two people involved, one can use WP:3O, but that wouldn't work here, as there are already mutliple opinions.  Mango juice talk 07:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mango, I was advised to solicit opinions the way I did by William Connolley shortly after he blocked Spin; see . Any allegations of canvassing should be dismissed. I posted notices requesting comments on the talk pages of Jesus, Mary (mother of Jesus), and Synoptic problem, as well as on the talk pages of the editors who edit those pages a lot. That was on the advice of Mr. Connolley. I also asked LTSAlly, Doug Weller, and Leadwind, because I value their opinions. And it may be worth noting that I asked Lead, despite the fact that we have had substantial disagreements in the past. Mango, is there any way that what I did can be construed as canvassing, particularly since I did it on the advice of an admin? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It all adds up to the one thing. Instead of dealing with the issue constructively, you made no suggests whatsoever that would make such a table acceptable to you, no corrections to do away with what you considered was wrong with the table, no attempts at good faith in the editing process. It all just had to go. No ifs or ands or buts. Constructive. And William M. Connolley's suggestion was not a wise one, only egging you on to canvass your invisible consensus.
 * Not everything you say to me goes in one ear and out the other. -- the ever-lovable  spin control 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously it does, as I have several times told you what needs to be done in order to make the table acceptable. And let's see, who's opinion am I going to value more....that of a rather new SPA, or an admin? Someone who has not had a formal vote of confidence on WP, or someone who has? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've thrown your erroneous interpretations of rules at me. You have refused to be constructive over the table preferring vandalism. You have tried to bolster your refusal by canvassing tame opinions. You have insulted me. Why don't you just deal with the table and stop all the subterfuge? How can the table be made acceptable to you? -- the ever-lovable  spin control 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When most editors, who have been around awhile, agree with my interpretations of rules, they are not wrong. A consensus of experienced editors agrees with my interpretation, not that of an newcomer. You have amazing hubris, saying that the majority consensus is erroneous. I was not canvassing. I solicited neutral opinions. It is hardly as though I went around getting all my friends to gang up on you. The table can be made acceptable by sourcing every cell with a reliable, secondary source. I have repeated that more times than I care to have. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't continue to insult me. And I didn't go around canvassing opinions. Do you think that you would get neutral opinions from some of the sources you tried? If so, you would be mistaken.
 * You say: "The table can be made acceptable by sourcing every cell with a reliable, secondary source." You mistake the necessities of use of primary sources on Wikipedia (I have already cited the relevant material on the Nativity page). There is no need for a secondary source if no opinion or interpretation is given. Each cell is a synopsis of a biblical verse. Would you prefer that I used the biblical verse instead of a synopsis? Can you explain, citing specifics from the table, what you consider is against Wiki policy? -- the ever-lovable  spin control 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to get secondary opinions as well, you know.
 * I do not need to defend my interpretation. Given that most everyone interprets it that way, that is the proper interpretation of the policy. You are not allowed to carry on with your own personal interpretation at policy, when it is at odds with that of the community. You will not successfully function here until you learn that consensus rules. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we stop the discussion here and move to the Nativity article talk page and please can you give a specific example of something in the table that you believe contravenes some rule. --  spin control 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Question re your comment
Doktorspin - I have read your unblock request. Can you tell me why you followed Carl to Rossnixon's page regarding the edit shown as a diff in your block notice, and further, if it was directed at Ross why you removed the note 1 minute later? Also why do you say your edit of February 15th was directed at Ross when that editor had not made any edits on that date, nor indeed on the day before?-- VS talk 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit I was commenting on was this: [] on the 12th. I'd come across the following comment made by Ross on the nativity talk page: "Many of the items are made to look like contradictions, but can be easily harmonized." This talk of contradictions and harmonization made me wonder if Ross was some sort of fundamentalist, so I clicked on his talk page to find out. --  spin control 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I thought the better of leaving the comment. The delay after the fact was not the issue for me: my off-the-cuff comment didn't make clear the issue and would have required more effort to clarify for no gain for either of us. It's a little hard for me when someone who doesn't know the material makes edits that only confuse the discussion. The source of the word in question was a Hebrew word נזיר, "dedicated", which has the third letter, YOD, the source of the Greek iota (in Ναζιραιος) gives the English "i". Samson was a נזיר, Nazirite... and so on. Too much effort and its point would have been lost. I couldn't improve on the comment, so I cut it. I couldn't do anything about the history. What should I have done, once the comment was there? I usually do a lot of editing: my first comments often get changed. --  spin control 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you'll understand that (3) is the only answer you can give once the comment has been left and it's a poor palliative. --  spin control 01:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC) By the way you'll also note that Carl's correction on the issue of Nazirite/Nazarite on Ross's talk page was what stimulated my initial comment. --  spin control 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) This "appearance" though has nothing to do with reality, as I indicated. I got to Ross's talk page for the reason already stated and found a brief discussion about Nazarite/Nazirite. The KJV form "Nazarite" is based on an unjustified change in the text by the original translators, as it is not a form found in the original Greek. The choice of an erroneous form found in the KJV went along with the possibility of fundamentalism and suggested that the person should not have meddled with materials they apparently knew nothing about and that Carl was responsible for correcting. --  spin control 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your return. I wonder if you can see therefore that the edit that you made some three days after the comment that you now refer does not assist in dialog because (a) there is no context in your actual full comment of It's actually useful to know something about what you are editing and the edit by Ross on the 12th, (b) there is no section heading by you, no explanation, no link and your edit simply follows Carl's edit and therefore appears to be directed at Carl, (c) even if it is directed at Ross - it is uncivil, and finally (d) you remove it within a minute thus losing any effort that you now say you were trying to inflict upon Ross (who had not edited for several days and still has not) and left otherwise some historical incivility?-- VS  talk 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question - (1) You should try and understand that these types of edits attack the editor and not the content, (2) You should also be more careful in using edit preview, thinking before you leave comment, etc so that you do not repeat this type of behaviour, and (3) Finally even if it become necessary to return and remove or edit your own posts, you should leave edit summaries that explain your reasoning rather than some days later provide those reasons - because that way your intentions will be clear and appear more genuine.-- VS  talk 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly - hence my comment/question that you appear to have followed Carl to Rossnixon's page.-- VS talk 02:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Spin, you may not remove content from talk pages that is relevant to discussion, past or present. Particularly in the case in which it was added by another user...under absolutely no circumstance may you remove that instance of the table. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments on the Talk:Nativity of Jesus page are regretably seeming to violate talk page guidelines, and general decorum guidelines, more and more frequently. As you seem to already know, from the other content on your talk page here, there are potentially consequences for acting in such a way. I am now once again acting you to abide by the rules of conduct outlined in the templates I added to the top of the page in question. This can be seen as a formal warning that continuing to violate the guidelines of conduct may face consequences all of us would honestly rather avoid. Please learn to conduct yourself in a more civil manner. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To do: Gallus Ammianus Marcellinus Libanius 3x Alexander the Great agape panegyric(s) Neoplatonism 2x + Neoplatonic ie 3 links Gregory of Nazianzus Basil of Caesarea/Basil the Great Theurgy Misopogon Marcus Aurelius Milan Shapur II Sassanid Empire 4x
 * Fix links for Julius Caesar, Socrates of Constantinople.
 * Multilinks

Jovian (side box) Constantinople (side box) Helena (side box) 363 (incl. side box 2X) --  spin control 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

?
Didnt realise you owned the article on Julian. Is he your father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.15.149 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated Help:Table for floating-images and borders
11-April-2009: I have finally been able to answer your dialogue of 21Feb09 about floating-images. The reply is in:


 * See talk page: Help_talk:Table
 * See new section: Help:Table
 * See new section: Help:Table

You have been quite clever to ask about those table-features, I have been working for months to try to document the types of high-quality display issues that you had mentioned. Thanks for the insights. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep hoping for better technology
11-April-2009: You seem to have very good technical insight, and intuition, and I suspect you could re-design a much better wiki-software system for years in the future. As you suspected, the class=wikitable is somewhat garbled, so perhaps use a blank table with no "class=" parameter which might thwart your progress. Blank tables can fit beside images or infoboxes with the following parameters: The font-size of 86% is similar to wording in an image caption. To align with an infobox, add "clear:right" so that the style-parameter contains both, style="float:right; clear:right".

As you know, most everything in Wikipedia is just a bunch of volunteers, in limited part-time hours, trying to define procedures or invent rules for "the entire world" to obey (or else). There is not (as you have seen) very much of an official structure. The 1,630+ admins try to keep things running smoothly, but Wikipedia basically is a runaway train, with admins "shouting to keep the cows off the tracks" and avoid lawsuits. This whole wiki-circus is just air-invented by people with attitudes, so try to tolerate the zoo until some people (actually with authority) eventually figure out, just how or what, the Wikipedia is trying to become, with over 9 million registered users (!!). Meanwhile, keep thinking of better ways to do stuff, and don't let all these volunteers try to upset you. Good luck. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Double link
Ah yeah, sorry I forgot to remove the one without Julianne, already went and did as you suggested. Although if you meant keeping the one it redirects to, I think it's good to show that the redirect exists and is not a red link. A lot of times the full name doesn't even redirect and people worry about that. Tyciol (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: your demand for apology.
Hi Doktorspin,

I'm disinclined to apologize to anyone who's calling me "an unhappy puppy" and a "disgruntled editor who lacks the ability to put a coherent case". However, I'm happy to acknowledge that from the evidence I can see, you do not seem to have been engaging in sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not alone
For what it's worth, you wouldn't be alone in having false accusations of sockpuppetry levied against you by Akhilleus. I never received an apology (though I never asked for one either), I doubt others who share our experience will either, and I sometimes wonder if and when that tarred brush will run out or how many others have been smeared by it. Coldmachine Talk 11:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I would wonder how many people has Akhilleus attempted to deal with this way. --  spin control 04:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Got your message on my talk; I've been following the discussion (hence my message to you) but thanks for the heads up. I think you got your apology, as politician-sounding as it was, and hope you can put this bad episode behind you and continue contributing; I know it took me a while to recover my faith in the project and to start editing again so I understand where you must be 'at'. Coldmachine Talk 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make controversial edits without WP:Consensus, per guidlines you can find at WP:BRD.
Please do not make controversial edits at Template:New Testament people without WP:Consensus, per guidlines you can find at WP:BRD. Some edits would be fine but your constant rvting without consensus is a waste of our time. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 x86

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD policy
"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though it was pointed out earlier. --  spin  control 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why have you asked it again, after American Eagle answered it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't. It seems you didn't read the discussion closely enough. --  spin  control 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm about || this close to blocking you for edit warring and disruptive editing, so I suggest that you stop forthwith. —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were told it was improper in when your putting it back was reverted. Then you asked it again at ANI. Not after American Eagle, but you did ask a second time after the question had already been answered. I'm done here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll stop whatever you want, but help me out here. What are you telling me to stop? The discussion at ANI? I admit I didn't know the rule about not replacing the PROD, but are you saying that I've done something that is outside of Wiki procedure beside that? --  spin  control 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This, for a start. —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just said, "I admit I didn't know the rule about not replacing the PROD". I thought my undo was justifiable at the time. As I said, I simply didn't know the rule about not replacing the PROD. --  spin  control

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Doktorspin. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia keeps all history
You are mistaken that the WASM (software) page was "wiped". If it were simply blanked, the previous content would be visible here. If it were oversighted, a note of this would also appear on that page. If it were deleted, it would appear here. Fortunately, Wikipedia has full logs of all content that ever existed, which cannot be deleted without root database access. No matter how much you protest, there is indisputable evidence that there was no article on Wikipedia about Open Watcom Assembler before I created it. You certainly inserted a link to WASM and then WASM (software), but WASM wasn't an article about any assembler, and WASM (software) didn't exist. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 13:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 History2007

Removal of sourced content and statements about scholars
In this edit you removed a scholarly opinion, accusing it of being POV. In this edit you had previously changed conformity to source, and called the scholar in question a "nitwit" on the talk page. You were told on the talk page to stop that. But that does not seem to have happened. You must stop calling scholarly sources POV, and deleting referenced text. You are not disputing that the sources say that, just saying that you think the scholars are nitwits, wrong or POV. That is against Wikipedia policy as you have been told numerous times by more than one editor on talk pages. History2007 (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop abusing Wiki policies and making false accusations. The material I removed was purely repetitious and argumentative in the lede. The content is still in the article, just not twice. --  spin  control 10:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is NOT the case. In this edit you removed a scholarly opinion, accusing it of being POV. In this edit you specifically stated that the expert statement was POV. Read your own edit summary. Just read it. It says it was POV. And per WP:LEDE the lede must summarize the content, hence some duplication is inevitable in the lede, and just because it appears in the article is no justification for deletion based on a self-assessed POV claim (on your part) attached to it. And as stated before, you have called expert opinions POV a number of times. You must stop questioning the highly acclaimed experts and calling them nitwits and so on. You must stop that. History2007 (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You falsely claim that the material I removed from the lede is not exactly the same as the material found in the Nero 16 section stating: "The passage shows the clear contempt of Suetonius for Christians - the same contempt expressed by Tacitus and Pliny the younger in their writings" and using the same reference. Perhaps you should take notice of what you actually put in the article and stop repeating things. Besides, repeating negative opinions about the source doesn't provide facts in the lede.

And calling people "pagans" is certainly POV. It is in origin and is generally now a derogatory term. Latin "Pagus" means "rural area", and "paganus" is literally one from a rural area, a country-bumpkin, a follower of old superstitions. Today, according to the Oxford dictionary, "n. 1 A person holding religious beliefs other than those of any of the main religions of the world, spec. a non-Christian; (derog.) a follower of a polytheistic or pantheistic religion. Also transf., a person holding views not consonant with a prevailing system of belief etc. (now rare); a person considered as being of irreligious or unrestrained character or behaviour." This is POV.

Readers need evidence based materials in articles that use neutral language, not unsupported statements loaded with POV. --  spin  control 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand you. There was no (repeat no) false claim on my part - whatsoever. I just said that you removed material and your edit summary said POV. That is true. Not false. Read your edit summary. Does it not say POV? It says POV.


 * Now, regarding the use of pagan by the scholar - discuss that on the article talk page, where another user also told you it is not POV. Disscuss it on the article talk. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012 Removal of references and WP:3RR
In this edit you removed material from the overview section, claiming it is repetitive because it is in the Gallio section. That does not just apply to Gallio, but is a general summary about all of them. So must be in the overview. And you removed the reference I just added to "Peoples of the Roman World" (Cambridge Univ Press, no less) that is no longer in the article now. Why did you remove that reference? You must stop removing scholarly references at will.

And in order to avoid crossing WP:3RR you must stop reverting now. You are on the edge of WP:3RR - I am not yet, but will stop reverting not to even get close to it. You must stop reverting. History2007 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have now crossed WP:3RR
After the direct notice above, in this edit you crossed WP:3RR as you changed text I had added today. You have crossed a bright-line rule and are subject to a block. You must show respect for policy. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * After you posted on WP:ANI, I responded there. You have clearly crossed it. There are 4 diffs there. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said on ANI, I think your doing these reverts and going to ANI after them was a waste of time. And you should know how WP:3RR works, given that you were blocked for it in March 2009. You should respect policy. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion before reverts
On the talk page of Suetonius on Christians you have been invited to explain why the minority view is over running the majority view established via WP:RS/AC and why the minority views of a small time author have been mentioned 11 times, way above all others, etc. In order to avoid a knee jerk revert cycle, I am leaving you this message to make it clear that my upcoming deletion of these items per WP:Due will not have just been without context and you had been given an opportunity to discuss them before they are deleted. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of breach deletion
Just noting that this breach notice was deleted by Doktor spin. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA notice
In this edit you used the word "stupid" to refer to my edit. That is a clear violation of the WP:NPA policy History2007 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR line
You seem to be on the WP:3RR line (or crossed it) on Suetonius on Christians I did not count that carefully, but count it. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert notice
In this edit you removed a quote from Louis Feldman and several images I had added to the article. I am not going to revert you, in order not to start an edit war. But you must justify why removed Feldman, removed the images etc. Else, it will be disruptive editing on your part and we will be back on WPANI. This sounds like WP:OWN on your part. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Doktorspin. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suetonius on Christians, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF notice
In this edit you called me a vandal, and in this edit you called my statements "fraudulent". These clearly breach WP:AGF and are beginning to breach many policies. History2007 (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are close to WP:3RR History2007 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF failure and the use of improper language
In this edit you have again failed WP:AGF and used improper language. There is no excuse for using that type of language. None. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF
And this edit again fails WP:AGF, of course. I made my statements based on my observations, and they were made within the direct boundaries of policy with suitable tags. But we should stop this talk page ping pong and you should stop breaching WP:AGF. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your profanity-based editing
A note here that based on this edit and your use of profanities I can not engage in discussion with you. I have zero tolerance for profanity. Wikipedia editors should not be subject to fear of profanity-based retorts as they discuss content. You are failing so many Wikipedia policies, it is hard to count them. History2007 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR
In this edit you have almost crossed WP:3RR - and counting exact hours is not an issue. You need to self revert, or be blocked. I have hesitated to discuss things with you due to your multiple uses of profanities and will not revert you, in order not to start an edit war, but you are clearly in breach of multiple policies ranging from WP:CIVIL to WP:3RR, etc. And note that Wikipedia is NOT a source for Wikipedia. And your sources in that edit failed verification: Gallio did 2 sea cures, at least. I am just getting started to clean that up, but will not revert you. Yet, your edit was improper. And please do not respond with profanities again. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by you
You are hereby advised that your "continued" personal attacks against me are a clear breach of WP:NPA. In this edit you said that I need to take a remedial reading class, and have continued to make that attack - questioning my intelligence on that talk page. You have previously been blocked for WP:NPA so should be familiar with the policy. Added to your use of deplorable profanities, this behavior calls for a block on your account. Should you continue this behavior, I will go to WP:ANI and request a block on your account. There is plenty of evidence of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL breaches now. History2007 (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of improper and less than civil language
I had previously advised you to avoid the use of profanities and improper language. In this edit you again used a 4 letter improper word. You need to use clean and civil language per WP:CIVIL, as you had been told to do before. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nth message about your continued use of vulgarity in defiance of WP:CIVIL
Again, for the nth time, you need to stop vulgarity in your edits. You have been warned about the need for respect for WP:CIVIL (a pillar of Wikipedia) enough times now. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI
You need to comment on Sockpuppet_investigations/Ihutchesson which has started. History2007 (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
I wrote some responses on the talk page of Suetonius on Christians all in the space of a few hours a few days ago. It turned out to be with my partner's account. When I went back to the talk page, I learned of the problem and attempted to correct it, by acknowledging through talk page edits that it was me who wrote the comments. There was no attempt to hide who I was or speak in a different voice in those comments. Here's an example of what I wrote, acknowledging a previous  spin |control edit of the article: "I have no interest in Carotta. I merely contextualized him as not being a scholar and holding a non status quo position: his comment has interest because it is a reasonable idea philologically." It should be clear from this comment that I didn't know that I was using my partner's account. This does not reflect sockpuppetry, does it? I have engaged at length with the editor who moved the accusation over a long period of bloody conflict, but no sockpuppetry was used.

How does the edit when read in context of  reflect sockpuppet activity? They are reversions of edits, one from an anonymous editor. There is no point for sockpuppetry in that. It was just another accident. Can you see how two accounts that have existed for several years, one apparently a sockpuppet according to the recent investigation, have never engaged in sockpuppetry, apparently until now? It doesn't make sense to me. Here are Wiki examples of sockpuppetry:


 * Creating new accounts to avoid detection
 * Using another person's account (piggybacking)
 * Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
 * Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
 * Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)

The few examples that have been noted here and in the investigation point only to using another person's account. The examples themselves point to that being accidental and not in any sense systematic.

The case for sockpuppetry hasn't been about sockpuppetry as the term is normally at all, but about the fact that we, my partner and I, beside the time we eat together, spend a lot of time on our computers. The charge is wrong.}}


 * Ahhh...so meatpuppetry instead. Got it.  As you're already well aware of, two persons from the same residence or business should not be editing the same articles as it gives the impression of false consensus.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You fail with racketeering so you try tax evasion and, maybe later, jaywalking. No evidence of sockpuppetry, so you try meatpuppetry, but I stated up front that I wrote the material in question, so why would you stretch the limits of meatpuppetry? My partner is blocked for a month without being directly involved in this. The claim regarding false consensus has been repudiated in my first paragraph above. Note what led to this comment: "It should be clear from this comment that I didn't know that I was using my partner's account." --  spin |control 12:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to say the same thing here I did on my talk page. Behaviorally, I think it is far more likely there is only one person behind both accounts. To me, this is reinforced even more by the fact that despite being aware of the screw up for some time, neither account offered a defense until after checkuser results came in. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The checkuser results were obtained a full three hours after I acknowledged via the same computer responsibility for the edits on the Suetonius on Christians talk page. That logic is false, Someguy1221. And if you don't live alone, don't you and your partner's patterns become similar? --  spin |control 08:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I remain unconvinced either way, and as such I have placed the unblock back on hold and have opened a community discussion at WP:AN. If you have anything to add to that discussion please post it here and it will be copied over. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, we have three computers in frequent usage, for which I do all the maintenance, installs, updates and fixes. That's the only time I touch my partner's computer, though that doesn't stop me from accessing webmail, checking forums, etc, while I'm there. The problem in this recent incident was the computer in the lounge room, which I wouldn't have expected my partner to use, but this was vacation time and it's close to the kitchen. --  spin |control 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Copied to WP:AN. NE Ent 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can, in your own words, state your agreement to respect these conditions, I believe an unblock may be in order, but first I want to hear what you have to say about it. Note that I expect you to discuss this with your partner and expect to see a reply by User:Ihutchesson on their own talk page to the same conditions. Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Doktorspin. Following the discussion at WP:AN, I would like to hear what you think of the following conditions before an unblock can be considered:
 * 1) Only one account is allowed to edit any article or its associated talkpage, ever.
 * 2) You both must take great care to logout at the end of any editing session, and will take even greater care in verifying that it is them who are logged in
 * 3) Future violations will lead to both accounts being indefinitely blocked
 * 4) require they cross link users pages with User_shared_IP_address to avoid future confusion
 * I'm waiting for my partner at the moment, so we'll get back, but I can see that there might be a problem with the first item on the list, for we both have an overlap of interest in the field of classics. What are we supposed to do in such a situation? --  spin |control 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The challenge of you both editing the same page is that you're literally giving false weighting in consensus situations, which is exactly why WP:SOCK is not permitted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Over the numerous years we have each been editing Wiki, does anything indicate the slightest tendency to give false weighting in consensus situations? No sockpuppetry. No meatpuppetry. No false consensus building. No grounds for blockage here. --  spin |control 05:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please understand the situation -- we have no way of confirming whether you are a single editor or not. There is no way to prove that, outside of identifying to the Foundation, and while that would certainly be a solution to everything, I don't think anyone will require that of you. Our policy on multiple accounts specifically dictates that it is fine to use multiple accounts when there is no editing overlap; thus, whether the community believes you are a single editor or not, adhering a strict no-overlap restriction would make the point irrelevant. If you cannot in good faith accept the first condition, I will still request your feedback on points 2, 3 and 4.  Salvidrim!    &#9993;  05:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to use my partner's account. It just seems that it has happened on a few occasions over the years. I will try to take more care. The third item doesn't require any input from me. It's up to the administrators. And I have no problem with the fourth. --  spin |control 05:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)