User talk:IseeEwe

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617891262 your edit] to Burma Campaign may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * *🇬🇧 ~1,000,000  Ellis, John, World War II: A Statistical Survey: The Essential Facts and Figures for All the

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basic Military Officer Qualification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Jean. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That link was already there. I will fix it. --IseeEwe (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Local vs wider consensus
Where do you see that covered i Editing policy? Maybe you meant to link a different section as this page makes no mention of it. I'd like to review the topic. Guidelines on how to use Wikipedia certainly require very wide consensus but Historicity of Jesus article is not within that scope. Alatari (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw it at BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, at the section "Cases_for_use" about half way down, As I read it "local consensus" used to prevent edits is not allowed. "A local consensus to freeze editing cannot override Editing policy." There is more on this at WP:Local consensus. To end this discussion about historicity of Jesus I propose to obtain wider consensus, to eliminate the so-called local consensus, which is just 6 users blocking change.--IseeEwe (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hit that wall before in about 2012. I can not yet support your final paragraph without reviewing all the sources. Thanks for the link. Alatari (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries. I'm sure the entire piece I wrote, just as the article itself, can be far more nuanced. Please provide comments to the dispute moderator. What I think we should propose is to have the article be rewritten in neutral tones, top to bottom, with sections outlining the various approaches to this question: faith-based, theological, exegetical, sociological, anthropological (archaeological), etc... The point for me is not about who's right, its about the reader learning about the rich array of perspectives on this matter. cheers --IseeEwe (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The one question which comes to mind regarding the above is WP:WEIGHT and how it might relate to such. Weight tends to be determined by proportional coverage in independent reliable sources relating to the broad topic of the historicity of Jesus, which would presumably be based on relative depth of coverage in one or more overview works dealing with the broader issue. Alternatively maybe a list of separate articles on each discipline's approach to the articles with separate articles on each different approach if the individual notability of each topic can be established as per WP:NOTABILITY. Establishing notability in some cases there might be harder. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Source pages for easy viewing
Do you have online readings links to the 14 new sources? For example here is Gero. It makes evaluation of the sources for all involved much more time efficient.

In your proposed version can you link an url that links directly to the page where you draw the data?

For example

would be

(Corrected the page number as 22 was the chapter). This way other editors and readers can link right to the page and see that your edit is drawn straight from the authority. It will speed this evaluation process. Alatari (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, That is going to take a long time. First things first I think. Before anyone invests energy into this I think we need to let the review and dispute management process I requested play itself out. I have also asked the moderator to invite you (and about 15 other active new editors over the last several) months into the discussion, to break this grid lock. The fundamental question is about "authority". Do we accept that "authority" to be used and cited in this article is vested solely in NT scholars trained in theology and biblical studies, or that valid scholar opinion is found, and to be used and cited from other disciplines? If the editors as a group are willing to move the article back to its origins, revise the whole article to NPOV, allow for a broad diversity of opinions and discussion without personal attacks, polemics and diatribe, then we can have a rational editorial discussion about what goes in, what comes out, how to structure the material, weighting, integrating non-English scholarship, etc... Do you agree?--IseeEwe (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, most of the references I provided are just off the top of my head and using stuff in arms reach. If all of this gets approved, then I can provide seminal sources to the key thinkers in the various fields, the context of their approaches, their diverse findings and opinions. This can be such a wonderful, friendly and enlightening article!! I have great hopes for it. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The new content will come down to a discussion of the 14 new sources and we'll have to peer into each one. Might be smoother if you make a list of the 14 with a single sentence behind each of the relevance and POV it brings to the historicity of Jesus.  For example, Gero doesn't mention Jesus at all but is a source about paradigm shift in an archaeological endeavor and the construction of the Paleoindian model.  Talk page discussion about the sources in a list is what I have seen before, especially science articles.  There is no way you'll get the current incarnation through; tribalism exists even on Wikipedia and you are new. Alatari (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the history of this discussion going back almost one year. Many people have brought forward a concern about objectivity, neutrality, scope, and exclusion, and tried to bring forward impeccable data and sources. Other arguments were found to stop change. If we talk references, they talk validity, if we show validity, they question authority, if we prove authority, they argue "editorial consensus". It is a circle with no end. The solution to resolving the bias and exclusion found in the majority of current editors here and the article itself does not hinge on what I wrote, or what others wrote. It revolves around whether or not the wider community can moderate this situation with head strong editors refusing objectivity, and if not, whether the wider community will arbitrate and perhaps even decide what should be done.--IseeEwe (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for personal attacks, disruptive editing and edit warring, as you did at Historicity of Jesus. See the ANI thread here for a more detailed block rationale. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This block is reactionary and ill-advised, considering it came in the midst an attempt to achieve dispute-resolution. Howunusual (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable policy. However, I have not requested an unblock nor have I made a personal attack above. Please address my application for ANI intervention, at the specific direction of DRN, concerning the behavioural impediments imposed by the editorial block at Historicity of Jesus that have resulted in POV tag and months of contention. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: IseeEwe, your request will be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. I have no objection if that admin, or another, decides to unblock, or to shorten the block to one week, as has been suggested by some users on ANI. But did you read the guide to appealing blocks ? I doubt a request with further personal attacks will do you any favors. Please note that you can change it at any time. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
 * What request? I asked a question. Let me do so again. How does that work again? And, since when is a clique a person? And in what manner does a neutral statement become an attack? Oh, and I have not asked to be unblocked. As it stands. This would be the only place to discuss the concerns I original brought to DRN and that they told me to refer to ANI. I perceive that these are still not being addressed. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IseeEwe, scuse me for butting in. I agree with comments at ANI that you have been given an over-severe block, and I'm also sympathetic to the content position you are pursuing. But it seems to me that an unblock here is yours on a plate, given that a number of editors think you have been treated harshly, and there's no good reason I can see for not taking it. You might see it as being made to jump through hoops, but why don't you just request an unblock using the most boring language you can manage and move on? If you're sniping at other editors here, how do you expect an admin to be confident that won't continue once you are allowed to roam free? I don't have enough recent experience on the article to evaluate your claim that there is a biased clique operating there. But let's say there is, just for argument's sake. Surely you are only playing into their hands by allowing the whole process to pause and become about you rather than the content issue? And just as you seemed to be making progress (the DRN request may have floundered, but it at least demonstrated a level of support for your position in the wider community). Sometimes it's most effective to keep your negative thoughts to yourself. Forgive me if that sounds pious. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You absolutely do not come across as pious. Thank you for your counsel. At this point, in this forum, my request for ANI support, made at the direction of DRN, to resolve the questions brought here were ignored, and reflexively and immediately turned into a different issue. The decision to block was made outside of the procedures that I understand should take place (engagement of the relevant editors, inquiry, debate, mediation, etc..). All the editors who agreed to mediate a solution on MEDCOM and the external review request and the Talk page of the article are being blocked. All the months and months of abuse of process and people by the little cabal of editors at question are being allowed to continue. As long as I remain blocked the question remains: why? Because of an investigation into the issues presented? After careful inquiry? After an attempt to connect to all the editors concerned? These have not happened. Instead I have been blocked on the testimony of two of the culpable parties, about whom, nothing, again, once more as usual, has been done. I am proud to be blocked. It reminds me, and others, that there is a problem. It also reminds me that I have more to do with my life then debate post-grads lost in the fervour of their self-righteous belief in the perfection of their discipline. (That's not you by the way) Thanks for your support. Good luck. Don't give up. Keep watching these pages. --IseeEwe (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Conduct link 1.2 and 1.4, where I summarize your edits to the article are not spurious -- You cited a dozen sources that did not mention Jesus, misrepresented several, and even cited a few outright polemics, as documented here. Conduct link 1.6, I ask Fearofreprisal if he did or did not make certain statements that can be viewed on that page -- That is not misrepresentation, and it is either a bad-faith lie or completely incompetent blunder to say that it was.  That you did not point out his repeated bad faith unevidenced accusations that were the purpose of Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus shows that you're merely trying to attack me and are not actually concerned about conduct.
 * The claims of consensus in 2.1-2.3 (by the way, you forgot when Mmeijeri reverted you, and pointed out, as did others, that the previous consensus remains until you formed a new one, not keep the new changes without consensus as you edit warred for) is not countered by the other links. The first counter claim you present was later amended (and so your original claim is out-of-context, a regular problem for you).  The second, fourth did not give you carte blanche for changes, but merely asked what changes you were proposing (without stating agreement or disagreement with your perceived need of changes).  The third is an issue still being discussed, and not related to your actions (unless you're Fearofreprisal).  The fifth actually countered your approach by calling for treating different approaches to the matter completely separate, to avoid creating any confrontation between the two, as your edits did. The sixth was not in agreement with your edits, but more in line with Smeat75's suggestion that we just attribute every view to each author, instead of labelling (and mislabelling) archaeological sources as true and historical-critical sources as false.  The seventh again does not attempt to justify your edits, speaking about a section you didn't edit beyond removing sources that Fearofreprisal coincidentally wanted removed (where you also accuse and editor for edit-warring for a single revert against your five or so).  The eighth and last is about the only one that comes close to agreeing with you, although it doesn't mention your edits, it suggests ignorance of how Wikipedia works (assuming the article has a single author), it makes bad-faith accusations that demonstrate the IP didn't actually read the article (acting as if the article cites the Bible), and it suggests actions that are completely contrary to the actions you took (deleting the article).  And even if your claims of no consensus were correct, as has been pointed out before by multiple users, if there is no consensus for changes, the old version stays.
 * Your claims of ignoring requests to communicate are hypocritical ("This is madness. I will not debate academia, scholarship or sources with you. My resort to dispute resolution is about this little cabal..."), and false, as other have been communicating with you (and if you mean that no one left you a message on your user talk page, your behavior since gives no one any reason to think it would have mattered). Your post also includes a subtle attempt at seeking claims of authority via credentials we cannot and will not verify.
 * Your claims regarding insults and harassment are hypocritical if they're not directed at Fearofreprisal. For claims of personal attacks by me, you cite:
 * the very explanation for why I called dismissing a group just because of their religious beliefs instead of the merit of their arguments bigoted
 * me pointing out that you continually making unfounded accusations is a personal attack (where I actually make it a point to not insult your intelligence)
 * where I respond to you making an undeniable personal attack on my intelligence by calling out your hypocrisy
 * where I point out that you and Fearofreprisal were the first to name yourselves as the suspected sockpuppets
 * where I point out a problem in someone's claim by reversing it into a reductio ad absurdum
 * where I counter unevidence claims of another user's supposed incivilty (the word "bigoted" explained in the first post)
 * where I point out problem with trying to remove an "opininio scholaris" and again show the problem with a proposed change via reductio ad absurdum
 * -- none of those are personal attacks.
 * Although I responded to this thread that you bring up as an example of editing other's comments, I (and common courtesy and practice) have to agree with Huon that the accusations toward a specific user regarding their conduct and hypothetical agendas should have been brought up on that specific user's talk page, not on an article's talk page. It's also hypocritical given that you don't seem to have a problem with someone having to restore a thread that Fearofreprisal deleted
 * As for the problems with sockpuppetry, this post only mentions that others were suspicious about it (are you going to pretend that there wasn't a thread that asked if there were some socks, for which you and Fearofreprisal were the first to name yourselves? I suppose not, what with you linking it next). Given that you have no problems with Fearofreprisal's misconduct, that's only evidence.  Condemning misconduct by Fearofreprisal similar to or worse than what you've claimed above would be a good way to demonstrate that you're not a sock. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Take everything you have written here and shove it, onto the Historicity of Jesus talk page, where User:Robert McClenon has outlined a solution that I encourage you to participate in. Constant Wikilawyering, whinging and polemics ad nauseum, are quite literally turning my stomach. You have been given a great opportunity to participate in a crisp, clean, managed discussion of the issues. Continuing to bicker resolves nothing. I await your response and contribution to the efforts being made by many others to participate in a rational debate as co-equal partners, on the talk pages. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not again! ISeeEwe, please read and follow your own advice.  You have an opportunity to participate in a crisp, clean discussion of the issues.  Please ignore posts that you think are hostile rather than telling another editor to "shove it".  Do you really want another block?  I advocated for you once.  Do you want me to conclude that I was mistaken?  Stop being confrontational.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have unblocked you, notwithstanding the fact that you note the last thing you posted was not an unblock request. The initial block was too long in length, and at this time, no longer is in the best service of the encyclopedia. You are encouraged to continue to seek an amicable resolution to the content dispute at Historicity of Jesus; please remember to remain civil in your discussions with other editors, and to avoid edit warring. Thank you very much.  Go  Phightins  !  20:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Go. Your attention and consideration are greatly appreciated. I perceive that the forceful intervention and excellent advice and direction provided by User:Robert McClenon on Talk:Historicity of Jesus have done much to address the particulars of the concerns I have expressed, and tried to resolve, as per the procedures and policies as I have grown to understand them. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Email
You sent me an email containing a proposal for reorganizing the coverage of the historicity of Jesus. Do you want it copied to the article talk page? By the way, it was much more structured and constructive than your previous posts either to the talk page or to ANI. As you can now perhaps see, some editors here actually do want to improve the article, and it is better to reason with them than to allege that they are acting as a cabal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will copy it there shortly. There have been very nice editors involved in discussing this article. 5 agreed to MEDCOM mediation and 3 or 4 delivered comments into your framework on the Talk page. Others have not yet made it apparent that they wish to participate in a discussion. Regardless, your intervention appears to have brought the nonsense to an end, and I trust it will allow reasonable editorial voices, that strive to make the article more inclusive, balanced and coherent, to be heard, and accorded the respect that we all deserve.--IseeEwe (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't think that MedCom mediation is the way to proceed. I think that an RFC is a better approach.  However, either would be another step in the right direction.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wonder if trying another RfC would work? It was completely ignored the first time. But you brought the curtain down on the circus, so perhaps an RfC might get the attention it deserves. I imagine those that have responded to you, and/or agreed to the MEDCOM process would be amenable. Before we go that route, did you have a next step in mind with the process you started? --IseeEwe (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, I would like to say I would welcome the most complete and comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of all major topics here, including this one. Like I've said elsewhere I'm going to consult and put together a list of articles in the only reference source on the topic I have access to so we can all see both the topics it covers an the relative weight it gives them. It is only one source, but it can serve as an indicator among others. If you have access to what seems to be the 2nd edition, which I can't, that might help, along with maybe gathering sources you think relevant.
 * Also, personally, I think it would be a good idea to make peace with Ian and Huon. Many people start on the wrong foot here, but alienating some of our best editors from the start is probably not a good idea. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You have mail
I have e-mailed you through the Wikipedia EmailUser system. Please respond before editing Wikipedia again. Thank you, AGK  [•] 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of No. 2 Squadron RCAF


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on No. 2 Squadron RCAF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  KJ  Discuss? 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Kkj11210 If I knew how to delete it, I would. Thanks!!! --IseeEwe (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence
Evidence has been entered against you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Foreign military bases in Canada (closed)


A tag has been placed on Category:Foreign military bases in Canada (closed) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Canadian Forces bases outside Canada (closed)


A tag has been placed on Category:Canadian Forces bases outside Canada (closed) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)