User talk:2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E

February 2024

Hello, I'm 184.152.68.190. I noticed that you recently removed content from Historical Jesus without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I provided a good reason, why are you claiming it was inadequate? 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You did not provide a good reason, content was supported by WP:RS. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not true, those sources are not reliable and don't cite evidence themselves. that's what I put in my explanation 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you believe the sources are unreliable, you can request reassessment at WP:RSN. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would that edit even be allowed in the first place? It is extreme and discredits an entire group of historians 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:YWAB. Wikipedia follows what the majority of reliable sources say about a topic, when there is consensus in a field as expressed in reputable WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we reflect that. If WP:FRINGE journals publish content out of line with the academic consensus, we ignore them. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that but the entire historography discussed in this article is NOT "the consensus" among historians - I removed one line and made two edits to hyperbolic statements. My edit was not "fringe" 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory is thoroughly WP:FRINGE. This has been discussed several times with a thorough analysis of academic sources reaching the same conclusion. Wikipedia is not the place for fringe POV pushing. I want to be polite here, but if you are only here to push fringe content I suggest you find a different hobby. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am a historian. Historian is my job, not my hobby. I strongly disagree with your statement that making language less defensive and more neutral is "fringe" and will stop editing, because what is the point. You clearly have already made up your mind 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to make up my mind, only to uphold community policies of which WP:FRINGE is one, WP:CON is another. You are editing against both of them which will get you nowhere except perhaps blocked if you persist.

Your qualifications, real or imagined, are not relevant here.184.152.68.190 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is in no way an appropriate statement for a "neutral" party to make. 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be neutral, I am biased in favor of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you would do well to start reading and adhering to if you want to be a successful editor. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will be contacting wikipedia and sharing this conversation 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Historical Jesus, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is literally the number one topic in the talk section of the article - why is that post not being responded to 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

---