User talk:Johnhannsg

Welcome!

Hello, Johnhannsg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

How things work here...
HI, and again, welcome. Wikipedia is a collaborative project - an "encylopedia that anyone can edit." However, it is not a wild west ! Over the years, the community has built up a whole body of policies and guidelines that help us live together peacefully and productively. As you can easily imagine - and as you are now experiencing - sometimes one editor adds content that another editor disagrees with. This is very common. We have a way to deal with this, and it is described here -- WP:BRD, called "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle." Namely - every editor is encouraged to be Bold (nothing happens if everyone is afraid to change things), but if another editor disagrees and Reverts, the thing to do, is Discuss. "Discuss" means going to the talk page of the article, and discussing the change, and how it fits, or doesn't fit, with policies and guidelines, and editors' preferences. Simply re-reverted, as you did, is strongly discouraged. It is called "edit warring" and is probably the #1 reason that editors get blocked or banned. This place is a community and works by consensus - and reaching consensus takes effort and discussion. If you care enough to edit, you have a responsibility to discuss and try to reach consensus. Editors who cannot or will not do that, get blocked or banned. So I as wrote in my first edit note, if you feel strongly about this, please come to the Talk. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * again, please open a section on the Talk page of the The Bible and violence article to discuss the perspective you want to introduce. Give the community and chance to discuss it, and please stop edit warring it in.  thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi this is John. I have just figured out how to use the talk thing. I think I have substantiated my sources. The vast majority of Christians hold the New Testament to be non violent. "Love your enemies" is prevalent message throughout. I trust the sources I have used (biblical and extra-biblical) are satisfactory. Any issues please let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhannsg (talk • contribs) 2 September 2014‎ 12:04, (UTC)


 * Your behavior is completely wrong and outside of the way we operate here. I have been trying to reach out to you to start a discussion and you have been ignoring it and instead WP:EDITWARRING.  This violates some of our most fundamental principles.  I am actually bringing you to a notice board here, which is somewhat equivalent of getting arrested in real life.  Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, I am sorry to hear you're upset. This is the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia, and have just been getting to grips with the programme- I'm not the most computer savvy! I apologise if I did not follow the protocol, but am happy to discuss whatever you like from this point onwards on here, now that I know how to use this talk page. I trust my previous comment addresses your concerns.


 * Please revert your last edits to the article and open a discussion on Talk. If you do that now I will assume you have good faith.  If you do not, I will submit the matter to the notice board.  I am literally about to click "save" and submit it.  Your choice. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I start a discussion on talk? Do you mean I just cut and paste my comments here?


 * Is what I've done below what you mean I should do. As far as I can see, the points are clearly substantiated- let me know what you think? You have threatened me a couple of times now, but I'm happy to talk.


 * no, this is wrong. i opened a discussion on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is WRONG and infuriating. If you are truly sorry, be more humble.  Realize that you do not understand how Wikipedia works and have acted egregiously. Stop being arrogant and pushing your point of view.  In Christian language -  Repent. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog- what is wrong and what is infuriating about my behavior? I suggest you attempt to substnatiate your points. I am learning how Wikipedia works, however if anything I have written which is incorrect, please tell me how. I will not make any presuppositions about the emotional state of someone I have not met, I suggest you do not foist them upon me either and, perhaps, we go to the subject of what our debate should be instead: the topic of the wikipedia article. With respect, John

I have to go to work. Please read my first post above - actually read it. The FUNDAMENTAL ground rule of Wikipedia is that we discuss things, and we do so within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You completely blew off discussing anything. That is like blowing off the #1 rule in Christianity, naming loving god with your whole heart. It is that fundamental here. And again - you completely blew it off, despite my notes here, despite my edit notes to you. Anathema. On top of that, you do not understand Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, and the content you are proposing fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. There are lot and lots of things to learn, and your refusal to talk, your edit warring itself, and the unacceptable nature of the content are the triple whammy of bad behavior and have made it impossible to even teach you. And now I am just about out of patience with you. Again, be humble and learn. And please - don't argue about things you do not understand yet. Ask real questions, yes. But don't argue. Not until you understand how Wikipedia works. gotta go. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already told you that I am happy to discuss things. I already told you that I was getting to grips with how Wikipedia works. You have repeated your accusation to me repeatedly, but as soon as I learnt how to use Wikipedia works I started using this page. You have made unwarranted presumptions about the emotional state of someone you have never met, and also about whether they were "blowing off discussing anything", and thenceforth told me a complete stranger of the need to humble themself. Your connection with "loving God with all your heart" is baffling and requires further explanation. Again, I am happy to learn, and to learn from you. If I have written anything that has not been susbtnatiated, please explain how. I will put in the primary sources again (i.e. the verses from the Bible), I will hold off putting in the secondary sources to talk about that more with you. I await to hear your comments. With respect, John


 * You are acting with no respect at all, and with no humility. Guess what - everybody here is a complete stranger to one another - and the fundamental way we show respect is by talking. Which you have not done.  The second thing we do is respect the policies and guidelines that the community has created when we try to build articles.  You do not know "how Wikipedia works" yet - you have beginnings of ideas about how to use the software.  (but you are still not doing even the most basic things, like signing your comments)  There is much more about how to use the software and MUCH more about the  "rules" here. And you already dug your self a HUGE HOLE. again, read WP:BRD - you are doing the exact opposite of that. Please stop edit warring content you want into the article, for pete's sake!  Even now you are continuing to do it!!!!  The most disrespectful thing possible. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Connection. #1 most important thing for christians, that in many ways, makes you a christian. "Love god with all your heart."  #1 most important thing that makes Wikipedia, Wikipedia: WP:CONSENSUS.  Talking.  Which you have completely violated.  It is great to be Bold, but if others disagree and take it out, you discuss the issues and after the issues are resolved, the article is changed. .  The most fundamental thing here. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog. 1) You are telling me I have not been talking. I refute your argument, and refer you to all my previous comments. 2) Regarding WP:BRD, I have reverted and discussed the issues. Have you? And why do you consider that you are not edit warring as much as I am since we've started this discussion? 3) Regarding your connection point, I refer you to point (1) I just made. With respect, John

You made your first edit to the article on 26 August 2014, and made six additions of the same material over the next week, all without talking. There is nothing to refute. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as I mentioned to you already numerous times, that was because I was editing in Wikipedia the first time. You are simply making an accusation without being able to substantiate it. I am here and willing to talk now- yet you do not want to. I am happy to discuss anyting regarding your edits or my edits. If you would like to move on from my previous inability in first using wikipedia as an editing tool to my position which currently stands of indeed being able to discuss it. Otherwise my response to you will simply be the same over and over: I was new to Wikipedia, was learning to use it, and did not know how to use the Talk page. I hope I have repeated myself to you enough times now. With respect, John.
 * I am discussing your behavior here on your talk page, which even now remains horrible. (I cannot believe that you have continued edit war in violation of BRD and CONSENSUS even as you say to me that you want to work here in good faith!).  I have discussed your proposed edits on the article Talk page.  Article Talk pages are where article content gets discussed.  Users talk to each other on User Talk pages like this one about general matters, not about article content per se.  I have no more to say to you about your behavior.  You will either come to understand how Wikipedia works, or not.  If you don't learn, you will get banned.  it will be your choice.  bye for now and good luck. 14:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * you found it once, but in case you forgot, the article talk page is Talk:The_Bible_and_violence. Please discuss your proposed edit there. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I understand you have edited in violation of BRD and CONSENSUS as much as me since our discussion has begun. You continue to make accusations about my behavior that are completed unfounded and out of place. I would like to point out to you that Wikipedia is not a sounding-off board to other members if you are feeling infuriated or frustrated.


 * You tell me that my behavior is horrible- but do not state how. What is it that bothers you which I have not addressed already? I have cut back my comments, and am awaiting your feedback on them as per BRD and CONSENSUS, and have only included the ones which are least contentious, and are direct primary sources related to the topic. I could state on an equal footing that you have undone my work in violation of BRD and CONSENSUS as well since our discussion has started. I have duly responded to your comments on the Talk page and look forward to hearing your response. With respect, John


 * I will take your question as an honest one. If you actually read WP:BRD, it says that if you are Bold and add content, and are Reverted, Discuss. The "burden" in BRD is on the one who initially adds content, and that is you.  BRD does not say, "re-revert and do not discuss" which is what you did for a week, and it does not say "re-vert and discuss" which is what you did today.  Nope.  It instructs us to let the reversion stand, and work to reach consensus onthe article Talk page before adding it back.  That is what you did wrong.  It is also true that I  stupidly kept reverting you - which I never do -  and instead of bringing you to "court" I foolishly took your finally starting to talk, as a sign that you were "waking up" but nope, you kept right on re-reverting and violating BRD.  So as of today there is no point going to "court".   But just know, that two wrongs do not make a right. If I had acted as I usually do, you would now be blocked for edit warring. Only my foolish trust of you, and my stupidity in reverting you, prevented that. C'est la vie.  But that is what you did wrong, and what I did wrong.  As I said above, I have no more to say here.  Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I will repeat again, that if you want to regain my good faith that you actually intend to work within Wikipedia's norms, you would self-revert your last changes to the article. Reset the clock. As it is, you have completely violated WP:BRD, even today. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What I would like is to write an objective article, and I do so in good faith. I have substnatiated the last changes I made as being highly relevant. You have undone the work I have done, which I have now not reposted, even though you have violated WP:BRD in doing that (and I believe the work I did to be factually completley true).
 * really I am done with this conversation. You introduced content, I reverted, so you should have stood down and opened a discussion.  That is not ambiguous.  But you are clearly like pharaoh on this one so I am not pursuing this further.  if you end up being here a while, you will see how ugly your behavior has been on this issue and how  wrong you are. but i am letting your edit-warred-in content stand for now.  this is the last I will say on this. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bible and violence
Various passages in the New Testament illustrate the non-violent message of Jesus. These are a few examples: Ephesians 4:32 "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you". Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you". Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?". Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you". Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse". Romans 12:17-21 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone". 1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing". 1 John 2:9-10 "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble".

Desjardins notes that a consistent them of non-violence runs throughout the New Testament. Following rejection or even under threat of death, Christians were mandated to respond in a non-violent manner. Probably the central act of violence in the New Testament is the crucifixion of Jesus. This act, held in most Christian theologies as crucial to the redemption of humanity by God, is also held to be ordained by God as a payment for the sins of men and women.[18] There are sayings of Jesus that relate to violence:[19] •	Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.Matthew 10:34. This is a reference to the persecution Christians would face against them as they preached the gospel. •	I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.Luke 12:49-51 The first part of this verse is a reference to the final day of judgement. The second part talks about the division the gospel would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it. •	•	And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.Luke 22:35-38

Jesus' cleansing of the Temple is an example of direct violent action by Jesus.[20]. Though it must be noted that in the biblical text regarding the cleansing of the temple, there is no account of any harm being doing against the person of anyone.


 * This is not appropriate WIkipedia content. Please discuss on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * part of our basic culture here - as basic a matter of courtesy as saying "please" and "thank you" - and a basic skill in using the software, is signing comments, per the bot message above. would you please start signing your comments? It serves many many purposes, as most courtesies do.  if you want to know what they are I will elaborate. but please do it. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. Yes I will do that from now. Johnhannsg (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * great. a similar thing, is "threading comments", so that is is very clear who is responding to what.  We thread by indenting, and the way that you indent, is by adding a colon in front of your comment.  one colon adds one tab, two colon adds two tabs, etc, and when the indenting gets ridiculous, you can "outdent" which resets the conversation back to the left margin, leaving an arrow to show the continuity. I just added two colons in front of your comment (you didn't put any) to show that your comment was in response to mine.  And I put three colons in front of this one, to show that I was responding to you.  If i wanted to reply to my original remark and not to you, I would put two colons (not three), so my response was parallel to yours, responding to the original remark.  I will show you what the "outdent" looks like here as well.Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

this is just to show the outdent. if you look at this in "edit mode" you will see that the code is two curly bracket and "od" (outdent) Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)