User talk:DennisRoddyy

CS1 error on Mark the Evangelist

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark the Evangelist, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits that the authorship of this gospel is anonymous and used 20th century sources, including the da vinci code as a basis. To relieve the confusion you seem to want, let me remind you there is no scholastic consensus on this issue of authorship of the Gospel of St Mark, rather there is almost a 100% reliance on tradition. If you want to source scholarship, please use scholarship from the early centuries, all other scholarship is speculation. Please refrain from inserting confusing statements about 20/21st century scholarship when there is no consensus at all on this issue of authorship. Rather, make point of the fact that the scholarship in the article defers to traditions. DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_244#Gospel of John. Your attempted approach has been found unwanted by the Wikipedia Community. You are not the first who tried and I guess not the last. The gist that they all have failed. So, yes, we prefer very much 21st century WP:SCHOLARSHIP to a bunch of Ancient scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ever again speak on behalf of the Wikipedia Community. Speak for yourself. The 21st-century scholarship (subtly) contradicts what you have written. Do not attack me for correcting your false assertions. DennisRoddyy (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like a lawyer, who knows the law, and so speaks of what the law demands. I'm speaking of what WP:RULES demand. Nothing more, nothing less.

And do tell, which Ivy League university teaches that the NT gospels aren't fundamentally anonymous? tgeorgescu (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mark the Evangelist, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is not considered a wp:reliable source. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Adakiko (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous content, written only days ago, is not constructive and referenced the da vinci code as a reliable reference point. There is no scholastic consensus on the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The da vinci code certainly does not provide one, neither do writings from the 20th century. As a theologian please refrain from editing my work DennisRoddyy (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is true. You're aware we can view the article history to see what was written when and what the sourcing was, correct? MrOllie (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Mark the Evangelist, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an explanation. Please refrain from promoting reverting edits and promoting the da vinci code as a reliable reference point. DennisRoddyy (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Mark the Evangelist while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Hopefully they can remove your original research DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You apologized on ANI while I was reading the conversation on the talk page to get the context. That’s good. Don’t ever make comments like that here again. Do not personalize disputes. Comment on content, sources, and scholarship, never on contributors. Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still haven't struck the comments in question, and since your final comment at AN/I before ceasing to edit was a new personal attack against the same editor you had just made hateful comments about, I have reblocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DennisRoddyy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In my last edit on the admin page I provided diffs (reply to 1st comment asking for diffs) and asked a question, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Please be more vigilant before blocking me. DennisRoddyy (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the block reason directly. I suggest you take a few days, and then post another unblock request that admits some fault on your side of things. PhilKnight (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've fixed the syntax of your unblock request. Your last edit at AN/I was this, which contained 0 diffs and 1 unsubstantiated accusation. But if you're saying you've been just waiting this whole time, that makes it even worse, because that means your failure to strike the very offensive remarks regarding another editor's mental health was deliberate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs were in my 2nd to last comment. My failure to strike the comment was accidental, there is no causal relationship between waiting for an answer and not striking the comment. Don't apply one. Why haven't you chosen to answer my question, don't answer it's rhetorical. All good, block me and skip back to la la land. As if I don't have a VPN with hundreds of other IP's — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisRoddyy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]