User talk:Si noah

Hello, Si noah, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gospel of Thomas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Edits
Hi Skyrise, thanks for the information on editing policy. It's very much in the vein of why I edited the page to try and show that despite what I may also belive the content should be independent and unbiased. I will use the talk page if any further changes are added to try and maintain the scholarly seperation that information should enjoy. Thanks again Si noah (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Theologians are scholars too. The information is vital for those who are scholars of Christianity, even those who are not believers. Due to this, you are unlikely to get consensus to make your desired changes through discussion on the talk page. Whether something is canonical or not is simply relevant to those who work in the field. Editors are not going to agree to remove something relevant just because it bothers you. I'm not in any way orthodox and it doesn't bother me at all. Most scholars of religion are objective. Your response is subjective. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Skyerise, I feel your response is midly antagonist and makes various (incorrect) assumptions about myself needlessly. If Wikipedia is a source of unbiased open information then I would question why you feel the need to direct that sort of comment at me. I have changed non-canonical because it is not used as a phrase by any scholar who is commenting on the text as an independent scholarly. That is not to say theologians are not scholars. My comment is objective in the sense it is supported by those who translated the text in the first place. If you wish to revert the page back to its 'non-canonical' use and that makes you happy then so be it but by doing so it lessons the value of Wikipedia and turns it into a very different thing altogether something I have my suspicions it already is (that is a subjective comment from me). Please refrain from the sort of comment you directed at myself as that is essentially bullying to get your own way. Read James Robinsons Translation of the Nag Hammadi texts and add a footnote demonstrating that he does not use this phrase would seem a solution but I would be suprised if that is your purpose though I'm open to be proved incorrect on that. Im am not in an 'editing war' and open to be shut down as you so kindly opened your discussion with I just wanted to see the information correctly included on a page many use as first source information. Thanks Si noah (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not at all antagonistic except to your arrogance. This is a collaborative project. You do not get to make unilateral decisions. This is not bullying. Consensus is how Wikipedia works. Such decisions are made by discussing issues on the article talk pages. Unless there are more editors that agree with you than disagree with you, you do not get to change the collaborative work of multiple editors. No matter how righteous you feel about it, you don't get to bully your changes into the article, which is what you have been trying to do. Skyerise (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be more of a personal critique than anything else. Arrogance and now bullying. Absolutely nothing to do with my trying to remove a biased link in the article. The bare fact is that the description is wrong. Call me whatever you want and that doesn't change. There is no collaboration in someone just silently changing free editing then sending a 'edit war' link. Any previous edit I have ever made has not faced this. The talk page is not fit as a device to do this and having never used it prior to this I was unaware of being used as such other than for general discusion which is not something I (or judging from the amount of talk anyone else really) want from wikipedia. Thanks for the sharp lesson and I see you are paid for some editing so obviously have a vested interest jn suppressing others who may want an open and sourced forum for fact ual information. I'd be interested to see a link explaining why it should be described as non-canonical. I note you (and the other editor who seems to have taken offence) have evaded that. Please avoid personal comments and stick to trying to use factual checkable and linked to scholarly article references. Add a link to say why it should be non-canonical if uts such an issue me changing it. I have included supporting scholars in my comments but you haven't so far. Go on I dare you. Si noah (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Thin-skinned much? Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I have strayed into some sort of parallel universe. I assumed a level of maturity but sending 'ha ha ha' and commenting that I'm not widely read has no basis and is frankly patronising. As I have said repeatedly the term 'non-canon' needs justifying when applied as it is a later Christian phrase that wasn't in existence when the text was written. You have avoided this in your drive to the gutter so obviously can't add a reference and given the negative response to my trying to add a supporting source it devalues wikipedia as a reference as well. What a pity. Why don't you want to support the original piece of information with evidence or a link I wonder? Thin skinned much isn't correct grammar. I imagine you mean I am very thin skinned? Again you devalue the service by making comments like that. Let's see a better standard. Si noah (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what justification do you feel needs given to refer to canon books as such? —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as the text predates the formation of the Christian Canon I would imagine that if it is being called 'non-canon' one of the early church fathers could be referenced to demonstrate why it wasn't included. If.you look at the Gospel of Judas page you will notice that the phrase is missing so why should Thomas that is a very different type of text from any other Gospel require it. I feel this needs justifying as it would have been out of place in the New Testament had it been included but it existed as a stand alone Gospel on its own merits and is used as such by many today without needing linking to post-nicene Christianity. It is indeed a non canon book but so many others are that don't state this so why should Thomas? As its translators don't tend to use the term why should wikipedia unless it has a Christian leaning. Hopefully that answers you but I'm happy to clarify further if you like. Si noah (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I see the sticking point. I am reading "non-canonical" and interpreting it as one of the books was known at the time the canon was established and that (is of the type that) was considered for inclusion in the New Testament but was rejected. That reading is based on the knowledge level of a layman who was confirmed into a Protestant church. Having read the article on development of Biblical canon, I can see how you might have concerns about the wording. The best approach is to spell this out at the article's talk page: not necessarily dumbing it down, but remembering that Wikipedia is designed that people don't have to be subject experts to write (or read) about topics. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's just it. I wasn't trying to push some agenda just thinking about using terms that aren't really relevant across the board as you say. It's easy to just carry on repeating a way of phrasing something because it seems to have a consensus but that can be very one sided. I notice that someone has now added a reference to the original term which is a move forward in itself and much appreciated. While I still think that using a modern New Testament lecturer like Foster to support it falls short of what I was saying I appreciate the effort and it opens a discusion at the very least. Cheers for your help. Si noah (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is your error: "needs justifying when applied as it is a later Christian phrase that wasn't in existence when the text was written." Wikipedia is written from the perspective of modern scholarship. There is no restriction to "terms in use when a thing was created." You just made that up! Quite the opposite, in fact. Wikipedia is expected to apply modern scholarly categories and distinctions. These are what is called "current knowledge". Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point but thanks for your valuable contribution. Si noah (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I get your point. It's simply not a valid reason to exclude a term used by other sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's use by some is perfectly acceptable but as an introduction what I'm saying is that it leans the rest of the article towards a particular view which is not broad and places it within a Christian context. In the definitive translation of the Gospel Marvin Meyer limits himself to calling it 'an ancient collection of sayings of Jesus' and the link he makes with the NT at the beginning of his introduction is to comment that unlike the NT gospels which are narrative accounts this is specifically sayings. He at no point uses Non-canonical and I feel this is correct in a non-theological introduction on a general information website. That is just one current translation and sure enough others views are available but by keeping the description general it is fair and free of opinion as such and not taking a side when describing a text that has wider uses than comparing and placing it within the development of the NT. It is also a widely used text in and of itself without this. Si noah (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to add the that. The Nag Hammadi library edition of The Gospel of Thomas translated by Thomas Lambdin has an introduction by Helmut Keoster which describes it as 'a collection of traditional sayings of Jesus' he develops this later by adding that some of the sayings occur in noncanonical gospels. He doesn't add of which Thomas is one so is clearly making distinction as to its place as a text. He also adds its more akin the one of the sources of the canonical gospels namely Q. Again at no point does he call it noncanonical. This is a source text with the purpose of bringing the library of works found in Nag Hammadi to a wider audience rather than just for those studying the NT. If we are going for balanced information such things should be taken into account when purporting to be a reliable and independent source. Si noah (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A lot of words, but no compelling arguments ... again. Basically you are saying "I personally don't like it" and "My few favorite authors don't directly mention it." Neither are convincing arguments on Wikipedia, even combined. What you would need is to find a source that directly opposes the use of the label with respect to this particular text. Then we could add a second footnote to the effect that so-and-so opposes the use of the category with respect to the text. That would be the best possible outcome in your favor that you could achieve, since multiple sources do use the term and Wikipedia is not censored, which is basically what you are trying to do: censor Wikipedia according to your own personal idiosyncratic standards. Skyerise (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Very judgemental again. You are making assumptions about me and ignoring what I'm trying to do. I don't need to find a source that counteracts the use of the term at all. That would be a different matter altogether. The term itself needs justifying and adding a footnote has gone some way to doing that but I feel that the original translators should take precedent and not those who are using the text with a specific task in mind, such as comparing it to the NT. That's fine in its place but its not a basic description of a text. If you think that's censorship I would say that is exactly why the text was hidden away in the first place. Because it didn't fit with the Canon put together much later than when it was written. Describe it as it was originally purposed or as close as we can get rather than use a term added later by those with an agenda about it and other texts. If you want to continue making personal comments about who I am then I see no point in the talk section for continuing any dialogue. Si noah (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Done with this conversation. I've engaged in no personal attacks, just normal conversation intended to show yourself how you look to Wikipedians. I suggest that if you really want to help Wikipedia, that you edit some articles which you aren't all emotional about. And read our basic policies and rules, because you aren't "getting it". I'm unfollowing your talk page, so I won't see any further replies. Skyerise (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You have engaged with me on one level that's for sure. Making assumptions again. That is absolutely nothing to do with the approach I have taken to trying to have the text edited. Thanks for you help all the same. Some lessons aren't worth learning or some things doing. Some very helpful people have added information and discussed with me about changes that have been really useful. Si noah (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, I've just been blocked by another admin by the same editor sending the original complaint to them again. I haven't edited since the original and have been using the talk section which I feel that Skyerise may have finally changed tack and seemed to thank me ( unless done ironically which I hope not). The other editor hasn't mentioned blocking me so I wonder why it's happened? Thanks Si noah (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2021 (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.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The word 'yet'in the edit noticeboard implies that I will be causing a violation. There has been no discusion from the two editors who have responded to adding a footnote or reference to show where their 'fact' is from. I have several and have shared the names of the scholars with them. No interest in doing so apparantly which makes me question why not. Show where its from if its true. Si noah (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not. It means that the report was filed before there was an (obvious) violation of 3RR. Please notice that I'm looking only at the procedural side of things and not the content of the edits, since it does not appear that any party is editing in bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for adding to that. I did try editing originally without a log in as I had done in the past with no particular adverse affect. Having noticed that this seemed to be changed by.someone with no comment or explanation I made a profile and re-edited it. This seems to have attracted two editors to criticise me and make personal comments and while I have explained as best I could that the original term needs supporting evidence if its so important to them it stays, neither has responded to that. I have sent them the names of scholars to support my changes but again they have ignored that and reverted it anyway. If Wikipedia is to be factual then this doesn't seem to be they way I would expect it to be run and I was quite shocked at the responses and will question whether to bother in future with the page. At least your administration seems to be looked at in a fair fashion but I wonder why it was sent to you in the first place by the editor rather than them explaining to me where their supporting evidence was as it was obviously so important to them. Si noah (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I appear to have been prevented from making any comment or 'talk'. I have tried adding a reference into a talk so that those who are preventing the text being changed can read a scholarly link from the original translators but appear not to be able to do this. I must say Wikipedia has disappointed me in its prevention of valid discusion and linking factual information over those who put opinion and call it fact. I have asked both editors to add a reference of link to their use of the term to support it. Can't see what is wrong with that if wiki wishes to be factual information. Am I wrong? Si noah (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite wrong. You have not been prevented from using the talk page. Your arguments being negative (so-and-so doesn't use the term) are not convincing, because many other writers may still (and do!) use the term or another way of saying the same thing. The fact that you claim otherwise tells us that you are not broadly read in the literature. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Gospel of Thomas and using your IP to continue the war
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Can I ask if you have checked this? The editor in question threatened me with this several days ago and I have not edited since. I have however used the talk page in discusion with this editor and another who has been rude and abusive towards me (skyerise posted ha ha ha ha as a reply to me). Another administrator agreed that their reply had been out of order. I agreed that my initial attempt to edit the page had been cackhanded as I hadn't really ever edited something as such. I then created a log in to try properly and was referred to the talk page which again I wasn't aware of so began using this to discuss changes. I have tried to respond to each request from these two editors with factual information but Skyerise in particular has been very personal in reply, something I haven't risen too but they have now obviously just resorted to shutting me up rather than engage in discusion. Please check the posts and let me know your view about it. Si noah (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Three corrections: (1) I was not the editor who submitted the complaint. (2) Only one complaint was ever submitted. (3) the actual situation was that one admin declined to block you, but left the complaint open in case another admin disagreed. Another admin decided that your past actions were worthy of a block, then closed the single complaint. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of them thanks. I had clicked to reply to the original admin but when published realised it had just added to this discusion. I don't find this very user friendly to be honest and have only just spotted some of the replies to my original editing that I was unaware of. It'd.probably help if like the first admin some folk took a different take with new users as I had never heard of editing wars or really cared for such approaches before using this. Nevermind Si noah (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple users told you that you needed to stop edit warring - a warning template was placed on your page and I explicitly told you to stop before reporting you. I'm not sure what more information about it you needed.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Are the multiple users the same number of sources you asked me to provide or do you just mean yourself and maybe one other? If only the real world worked like that. I don't like you doing that so I'm going to block you. It's much helpful if you approach someone and explain an alternative way of doing something that works with the format. I'd opt for that if I was familiar with a system and felt someone else wasn't. You might like to try it sometime rather than reach for the red button Si noah (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You might try reading the edit warring warning next time as it provides the information you’ve asked for. I’m sure the next time someone starts overturning the shelves in the grocery store you’ll explain to them how to conduct themselves better before you inform the manager to throw them out. In your case the block is just 48 hours, although I don’t think you show much sign of understanding what you did wrong.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nicely patronising. The analogy is really relevant either as typing an edit (admittedly not using the required process properly) is not equivalent to criminal damage. But them maybe it is to you. Understanding wrongdoing is one thing. Agreeing with you is quite another. Si noah (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? Seems like it to me. Wikipedia is private, not public, property, and we get to determine who can and cannot edit based on their behavior. Most new users get a welcome message pointing them to where the rules can be found and read. Vandals get blocked because they are technically trespassing if they don't follow the rules. This exactly parallels criminal damage to a grocery store, but we choose to block rather than press charges. Skyerise (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No show without Punch. I assume that's the Royal We you are using. Which country's private property laws are we talking about here in my obtuse fashion I'm obviously not sure which apply. Si noah (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an American non-profit and charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California. See also Computer trespass and WP:Single-purpose account. Skyerise (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe when I have a spare life I'll read up on it. Can I suggest you spend a bit of time having a lovely walk in the countryside and recharge yourself a bit. It's very beneficial. Si noah (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * How condescending! Take your faux concern and ... Skyerise (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Really recommend that walk. Does wikipedia provide support for its paid editors? Si noah (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Skyerise (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

See you're tired. A bit of fresh air will help with that. Si noah (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

May 2023
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Burn Hall, County Durham, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * hi, reference 3 is still incorrectly attributed and needs removing. Si noah (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You could have removed it yourself or mentioned it on the article Talk page, but what you can't do is add commentary to the article itself. I've taken care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks, I see its gone. Editing and correction isn't very clearly laid. I'd have thought that adding a note to point out something incorrect would lead to it being checked and just put right like you now have. Thanks again Si noah (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)