User talk:71.114.123.162

March 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Northern courage in Middle-earth, you may be blocked from editing. You have been informed, several times, that your edits were mistaken, and the reasons why that was so have repeatedly been explained to you: further, I told you I was away and would respond as soon as I could. Rather than waiting, you have repeatedly made drastic edits to the article, which is highly disruptive. Please await my reply, and I will read and action your comments properly in the article if any of them are usable, or if need be explain why they aren't usable. We can then discuss further; edit-warring is however unacceptable, so please stop editing the article at once until we have agreed a way ahead. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2023 (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.

Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Northern courage in Middle-earth that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2023 (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 may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Northern courage in Middle-earth. Please stop edit-warring at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2023 (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.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Northern courage in Middle-earth. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2023 (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.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Northern courage in Middle-earth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. No, Tolkien was not a "Modernist"; scholars are definite on that: he was "modern" (20th century) but certainly not ironic about his work, for example; saying so in the article is a clear misinterpretation of sources and wholly inappropriate Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien was 100% a modernist. And the sources I added show that this has significant coverage in Tolkien scholarship. “Irony” as literary device is a feature of postmodernism, not modernism, so I’m confused why you the lack of irony in Tolkien’s work means that he’s not a modernist. I am not misinterpreting anything. Literally just read the sources I added. Man, I’m sorry that the sources don’t say what you want them to say, but they say what they say. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2023 (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.

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. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2023 (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.

hello fellow editor!

noticed you're having trouble editing an article within the Tolkien legendarium. seems contentious, probably needs consensus. thanks for taking the time to help keep wikipedia accurate. Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The title you re-added makes no sense. Why did you re-add it? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A note on "editorializing"

I note your multiple edits to Paganism in Middle-earth. I have responded to these one-by-one as these are more like normal edits than your earlier mass deletions: I'm grateful for the change. Your edit comment "Eru is remote in some ways, but is present throughout The Silmarillion in all kinds of ways" is probably worth commenting upon, as it implies that you think that a cited statement in a formally-reviewed article can be edited or removed based on an editor's opinion about the meaning of the statement. Now that would be editorializing: relying on one's personal knowledge, beliefs, or opinions to make an editorial change. The statement in the article, however, is not of that kind. It is cited - correctly, I just checked - to Curry 1998; and the phrase "remains remote" is present there. In fact it's more than that: Curry was quoting Tolkien, who states in terms that Eru was not directly accessible to Middle-earth beings. I fully understand that a Christian might be pleased with the correspondences between the Christian God and Eru, and might wish to assert that Eru was present in all sorts of ways, but that would be a personal wish, opinion, or indeed religious position, and all such things are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia (all content must be written from a Neutral Point of View). This too is a core Wikipedia policy, so whatever you may believe, you must not allow any of it to creep into your editing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Eru is literally the God of Catholicism in Tolkien’s legendarium. You do know that, don’t you? “Aia María, quanta Eruanno”.

Also, The Silmarillion is the main, primary and central work of Tolkien’s legendarium. Ignoring it because you want to make Tolkien and his work seem pagan is absolutely bizarre and very fringe. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That tone is way too close to personal attack, so please stop that at once. This page is NOT A FORUM for general discussion. As for making anything seem pagan, no, the article is just one theme among many discussed by Tolkien scholars; neither I nor any other editor I know of on the project has any special preference for it. Nor is anyone "ignoring" the Silmarillion in any way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Paganism in Middle-earth. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2023 (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.

BTW the CIR thing is not an accusation of general incompetence: it is a specific statement that editing Wikipedia requires a basic modicum of training. I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression: yesterday was quite a hassle and towards the end of the day I may have become a little brusque, but the point was actually a serious one. If you have the intention to edit Middle-earth articles constructively, you will be welcome; that demands knowledge, at least, of how to find Reliable Sources and how to Cite them correctly. I look forward to your constructive participation in the WikiProject. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You made the suggestion that I am not competent and that on that grounds, none of my suggestions for change should be accepted. I don't know how that couldn't be taken as a personal attack.

I have made multiple serious suggestions for change to multiple articles. My tone rose because I was faced with endless edit-warring instead of an honest conversation over the changes I am suggesting. I have also brought up the serious topic of anti-Catholic bias, which in my view is being perpetuated by the content of the articles as they currently exist.

I am willing and ready to have a civil conversation about my concerns. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope that's so. However, your concerns about the articles have been rebutted repeatedly on the facts on multiple talk pages by multiple editors. There is precisely no evidence to support your assertion of anti-Catholoic bias. The articles give extensive coverage to Tolkien's Christianity, at least as detailed as coverage of his use of pagan themes, so it is hard to see where any bias might be. The article on Christianity in Middle-earth, like all Tolkien articles, is entirely respectful of Tolkien's faith, and gives multiple aspects of it extensive and neutral encyclopedic coverage. Further, both sides of the coin are reliably cited both to Tolkien's own statements (such as that the Valar appear as "gods", but not theologically [as they are under the One]) and to a large number of scholars of literature, of religion, and of the medieval period. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Athrabeth (again)

(From ANI page)

When did I claim that the Athrabeth uses the word "Christ"? I was told by yourself that Christopher Tolkien's commentary is a primary source and thus not allowed on Wikipdia. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This page (ANI) isn't the right place for technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You stated that the Athrabeth spoke explicitly about Christ, which it does not. Christopher Tolkien is doubtfully a secondary source, as he's obviously rather close to his father, but I told you earlier that you could certainly quote and cite him for his opinion. That will remain true whether he's agreed to be primary, secondary, or halfway between. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I said that the Athrabeth explicitly involves a Christ-figure, who is interpreted by Christopher Tolkien as literally being Christ.

Proximity between the subject and the authors of secondary sources is completely irrelevant. Tom Shippey and Tolkien also knew each other and interacted with each other on a scholarly level. By this logic, Shippey would also "doubtfully" be a secondary source.

I gave the quote from Morgoth's Ring written by Christopher Tolkien and you told me that it was a primary source and thus not allowed on Wikipedia. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I see, but your logic is not one that I can follow. "Explicitly" means openly and directly, which in the case of a text means that it actually names the thing it is talking about. The Athrabeth may, as Christopher Tolkien wrote, be implicitly about Christ, but it is not explicit as Christ is not named. Your use of "literally" here is figurative but not exact: literally would again mean naming Christ, which the Athrabeth does not do. Christopher Tolkien may have felt that it must have been referring indirectly, implicitly, to Christ, but a scan of the text for the mention of his name will not find it.

Your argument about proximity does not demonstrate that Shippey is a primary source on Tolkien, far from it; and having (briefly) corresponded with somebody (obviously) does not cause one to become a primary source, or all scientists who went to conferences together would be a single source, clearly not the case. The case is very different for Christopher Tolkien, who was both Tolkien's son and worked directly with him for much of his life, and then studied his father's manuscripts for the rest of it. For my money, Christopher Tolkien's books (such as Morgoth's Ring) are a hybrid: obviously they directly contain large amounts of his father's texts (those parts of them are primary, no argument) and then they are commentary on it, which should be secondary: only, the commentary is influenced by half a lifetime of contact with his father. So it's primary for the JRRT texts, and I suggest secondary-with-caution for the commentary.

On "primary source ... not allowed on Wikipedia", that is not quite the case. We can't rely wholly on primary texts in articles as they do not establish Notability. The policy does allow us to use primary materials to establish basic facts: we can quote The Hobbit to say "Tolkien wrote in The Hobbit that "...", and nobody should disagree with that. But no amount of primary quotation demonstrates that a topic is notable; for that, we must have reliable secondary sources. Those say "Scholar A wrote ..." and "Film critic B said ..." and "Journalist C commented ..." and together, with luck, these mentions, if they are sufficiently substantial, will be understood to demonstrate that The Hobbit is indeed a notable work. I do hope this is clear, as it is fundamental to how Wikipedia works; I thought I had explained this a few times already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand how Wikipedia works and I do not appreciate the condescending tone you are taking with me.

Christopher Tolkien wrote what he wrote, as I given as a direct quote on the relevant talk page. I'm sorry it doesn't say what you want it to say.

I am going to disengage from you as this conversation ceased to be productive and has become personal. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

OK; for me, that point was reached a long time ago, as I (and it seems several other experienced editors) found your approach uncomfortable, difficult to engage with, and frankly as others have said, disruptive. If you feel able to engage constructively with all of us, we'll certainly engage with you. Till then, I'll say goodbye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, I'm Hamtechperson. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Tomáš Taraba, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hamtechperson 23:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tomáš Taraba. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hamtechperson 23:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Which part of my edit is factually incorrect? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. poketape (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Vladimir Putin. The talk page is not the place for you to give your views about Putin. 331dot (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to get blocked for saying something about Vladimir Putin? Yikes. 😬. Wikipedia truly is being taken over by Kremlin trolls. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Putin is an evil human being, but article talk pages are not the place to express views about the subject. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not express a viewpoint. I stated a verifiable fact. Plain and simple. A Wikipedia where it is a bannable offense to criticize Putin is not a Wikipedia that we should be fostering. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You were blocked, not banned, there is a difference. You were not blocked specifically for your views about Putin. You were blocked for misusing talk pages, which are for discussion related to improving the article, not for giving our views on the subject.

I'll also note that you are not permitted to make edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict(including the war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah) unless you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 or more edits, as it is a formally designated contentious topic. I will formally notify you of that restriction below. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I was blocked (semantics; blocking is banning) for stating the verifiable fact that Putin is an inhuman piece of filth. I did not express a personal opinion or viewpoint at any point on any talk page as this is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. I stated a fact which is supported by reliable sources. It is sad that Wikipedia has become so concerned with false balance as to misconstrue a simple statement of fact as being the expression of a personal viewpoint. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A person being a "piece of filth" is your personal opinion formed by information you have viewed. You have no sources that formally designate Putin as a "piece of filth" because there is no such formal designation, be it by a court or the consensus of academics/scholars/historians/whoever. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Putin is an inhuman piece of filth whether I say that he is or not. My personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is a fact supported by reliable sources, which is the entire basis for Wikipedia. There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that only “formal designations” be allowed to be used to describe topics. We go off of what reliable secondary sources say, not what primary sources do or don’t say. Do you understand that? I’m sorry that I offended Putin or whatever, but there are no rules against portraying Putin accurately. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

331dot (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The passive aggressive condescension is palpable. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

---