User talk:Psvait

WP:BRD and Edit war warning

I know your is account new, but that is no excuse for not reading Wikipages. So here are the steps to follow:

Step 1: Count up to 4: the lede used to have 4 paragraphs, you made it 3 paragraphs. Obvious. And the material you removed is fully relevant. So you needed to be reverted.

Step 2: Read WP:BRD. Once it has started, you must "discuss" not revert. Is that not clear?

Step 3: Read WP:Edit war. Should you ignore Wikipedia protocols and start reverting sans discussion, your access may be blocked.

Per WP:BRD I am revering you on Tacitus on Christ and must discuss on talk before you revert again. Is that clear? It is very simple. Just follow what you read in the pages mentioned above History2007 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read BRD; it does not preclude reverting. In fact, it suggests making a BOLD edit in return, and while that BOLD edit should hopefully avoid a reversion, it is the case that my BOLD edit must be so.

The fact of the matter is that you are the one who is avoiding discussion. So far, I am the only one who has made a reasonablely specific statement in the discussion. Psvait (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Edit war warning

I have to issue you a 2nd warning, given the disregard shown to the previous warning. I will not revert you this time, in order to avoid an edit war, but your disregard of Wiki-protocols clearly puts you on the path to being blocked.

FYI: The paragraph you removed from the lede is the following:

The passage is also of historical value in establishing three separate facts about Rome around 60 AD, namely that there was a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome and that even pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.

That material summarizes a key point in the article and should not have been deleted - and its deletion should not have been denied.

I suggest you self revert to the point where I initiated WP:BRD. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning is without merit, as anybody can see from the discussion. Psvait (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the warning stands. The merit or lack thereof is your opinion. And you are further advised not to modify the talk page edit formats of other editors, as you did and I pointed out there in the edit summary. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it stand in your mind; I can't do anything about that. Your edit format was disruptive, and this constant whining is unhelpful. Psvait (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have finished reading the other pages, you should now read the page Talk page guidelines which states:

The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

You have not had and do not have my permission to modify my talk page edits in any manner whatsoever. Is that clear? Is that clear or does it require further explanation again. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody modified your comment. You continued a thread of discussion by introducing a new, inflammatory, and vaguely related section header. I was trying to improve the readability of the thread, and I did not remove any of your content. You are being wildly hostile and completely unhelpful in motivating a discussion&mdashheck, you refused to explain your initial reversion of my edits, which is why this discussion has lingered on so horribly. Psvait (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to now warn you again, about calling other editors "wildly hostile" and generating a WP:Battleground accusation when you have made errors and eventually acknowledged them. As you had noted on that page, I had a very jovial and friendly conversation with a 3rd editor on that page and he had congratulated me on the improvements I had made. The conversation was very friendly on that page. Please avoid WP:Battleground accusations for they are also against policy. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean; you are just throwing around bureacracy like a heavily-metaled, rank-pulling officer of a military tribunal. How is that not hostile?

Most importantly, please remember that it was you who made a blanket reversion of my edits and the refused to provide any kind of meaningful explanation; that is the reason why this "discussion" has been so un-jovial. You need a warning about not reverting edits without making a clear point. Psvait (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I must warn you against that comment. And when I reverted you, it was totally based on WP:BRD which clearly permits that. And I did state that I needed a little while to attend to another matter, and did clearly state that one of the reasons was the deletion of the 4th paragraph from the lede? Do we recall the 3 is not the same as 4 discussion? History2007 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that you reverted my edits wholesale without explanation when a simple explanation from you would have avoided much confusion. I recall that you didn't bother to just reintroduce the erroneously deleted couple of sentences. I recall your bizarre adherence to "THERE MUST BE 4 PARAGRAPHS IN THE LEDE!!!!1111". Psvait (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there must be 4 paragraphs in the lede. Did I neglect to mention that? It is a "respect for Wikipedia" issue. There is, however, no guideline against teh use of multiple !!!! marks on your own talk page. Feel free to use those. But do follow what WP:LEAD tells you to do. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning

Again, without any agreement or consensus whatsoever, you have taken matters in your hand, and introduced bullets into the lede. On the talk page it was explained to you that WP:LEAD requires 4 paragraphs at most, based on a given structure. You are breaking the rules right and left with no regard for Wikipedia guidelines and protocols. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm following the protocol of BRD. Also, you explained "that WP:LEAD requires 4 paragraphs at most, based on a given structure" AFTER I made the good-faith edit to correct a mistake that I had no idea I had made, and, more importantly, you seem to be trying to use strict, mindless bureacracy as a point of attack. Psvait (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a question of respecting Wikipedia protocols, and they require 4 paragraphs and do not encourage bullets. It is simple. Really simple. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines; there is no law or literal interpretation. Bullets do an excellent job of listing the additional facts provided by the passage, and the introduction looks great with them. Psvait (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, and I do not agree. However, it is clear that you feel you can edit the page without any agreement whatsoever, based on your personal and unilateral determination of what looks great during a WP:BRD discussion. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS notice

As stated on the talk page Tacitus on Christ your edit created an orphan reference number 4 called AntiochRome which referred to a WP:RS source. It also added a non WP:RS website leaderu.com which had been correctly removed. I did not revert you to avoid an edit war. You must read and respect WP:RS, not add non-RS sources and follow Wikipedia protocols and guidelines. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you fix the orphan reference? That orphan reference was made because I copied your text verbatim when incorporating it into the existing text, without realizing that it didn't actually refer to anything; you have known this whole time, and didn't do anything about it, but instead choose to issue a citation as it were like some bored traffic cop. I'm guessing that rather than doing productive work, you're basically trying to fill my talk page with "citations" so that you can drop a note to some admins saying "See? This guys is really bad!"

As for the non-WP:RS source (as you claim), I believe I copied that existing information from the Historicity of Jesus article. Again, why not make a specific note of that fact and then a specific edit? Or, is it just too much fun to act powerful? Psvait (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD a few times. Then a few times more. Once BRD has started, I do not edit the page. is that clear? Do I need to explain it again? Then read WP:Edit war a few times. Then type more. Read first, type later. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:AGF warnings

You must stop making statements as you did in this edit that are WP:Personal attacks on other editors stating that another editor "insists on making so many misinterpretations". That is a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AF. You should focus on content and edits not the other editors. You may note that in our discussions I have generally commented on your edits, in order to respect WP:NPA. Similarly, you must follow WP:NPA and only discuss content and edits, not the other editors as individuals. You must also follow WP:AGF and not assume that other editors are deliberately misrepresenting facts. That is a clear breach of WP:AGF. There are so many breaches of Wikipedia protocols here, we may need bullet points to list them. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that you've interpreted any of these things properly. Psvait (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a last resort, one may attempt reading the two pages I mentioned above. Believe me, I know the policies. You are in breach of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. It is simple. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Believe me, I know the policies.... It is simple" Oh, is that really so!? I certainly believe you know how to link to various guidelines; you're very good at that. Psvait (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is simple: follow WP:BRD, follow WP:Editwar, follow WP:RS, follow WP:NPA and follow WP:AGF. That was what the warnings were about. You must follow and respect those protocols. It is simple. History2007 (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Now, please spend time making productive edits on Wikipedia, and quite badgering me, or I'm going to report you. Psvait (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only asked you to respect Wikipedia protocols. Feel free to report to the United Nations if you like. As for my lack of productivity, I do offer my apologies. I have only written 500 articles. I will try to do better in the future. Next step: you must respect WP:RS and clean up the non-RS reference you introduced. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have only written 500 articles."

I am surprised that you still make such preposterous misinterpretations.
I am not surprised that you seem to have a god-complex.

Psvait (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made no misrepresentation. Each bullet starts a new paragraph, so it was too many. History2007 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not likely how you interpreted it, based on the discussion. That being said it's still very weak, and I will not play games that replace Wikipedia's spirit with ridiculous literal interpretations and misinterpretations. Psvait (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second WP:NPA warning

You were just pointed to WP:NPA and WP:AGF a short while ago. Your statement that I have a "God complex" is a clear WP:NPA breach, despite the warning above. You are clearly in breach of multiple Wikipedia policies, despite the warnings. History2007 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you have a "God complex". I said "you seem to have a god-complex", especially regarding the way you are trying to bully me into submitting to your various instructions. Make the edits yourself. Psvait (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference. You still made that statement about me, it is a WP:NPA breach, despite the previous warning. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]