User talk:RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom

Hello everyone! Ciao a tutti! --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of template

Please don't keep slapping {{Dispute about}} on a paragraph in Christ myth theory unless you are prepared to elaborate on the dispute on the article's talk page. There needs to be a dispute about a fact stated in the section and a discussion taking place on the talk page. The purpose of the template is not to act as a marker that you disagree with a section, or as a "badge of shame" for that paragraph, but as an encouragement for other readers and editors to join in an existing discussion on the talk page that you feel needs wider input. At present there is no discussion of what fact might be inaccurate on the talk page, so nothing to attract outside opinion to. It also adds the article to Category:Accuracy disputes which helps independent editors find disputes over accuracy that they may be able to offer an opinion on. Please don't waste their time. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: But I did! See the talk page. And I did ask for 3rd opinion too. And I left a message on talk page of the original editor. (No comment until now). You allege that I use this as "badge of shame"? Read through the list "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom" and you will see that I used this as a last resort, the only thing you can say that I'm too impatient. But badge of shame? No Sir! --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To re-iterate my arguments: (1) The founder of a rival religious belief system cannot be open-minded and isn't therefore a scholar source for the article on Christ myth theory. (2) If the question about the (non-)existence of the man Jesus from Nazareth is an important aspect for that belief system then it should be mentioned in the article of that belief system or of its founder. But it isn't. (3) The official statement of that religious belief system even contradicts the claim and assets the existence of the man Jesus. That doesn't necessarily mean that the other text is false, it can be that the "source" produced conflicting messages over the course of time. But if that's the case, that makes the source even less usable. Which is then the correct message? Should both be included? But back to (1). The founder of a rival religious belief system cannot be open-minded and isn't therefore a scholar source for the article on Christ myth theory. This is my main point. --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa, I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. The template is there to attract more opinions on whether a fact stated in a section of the article is accurate or not. You're not disputing the accuracy of a fact stated in the article; you seem to be just disputing whether the paragraph concerning Hubbard deserves to be in the article - am I right on that? If so, the template is completely inappropriate, I'm afraid. I'm sorry if you took my comments about templates being misused as a badge-of-shame as necessarily applying to your edit. I have no insight into your mind and intentions, but I do know that these sort of templates are all too often applied for the wrong reasons. I'm in the middle of adding to the article talk page as much advice as I can muster. Perhaps you'd like to read what I say in that section in a few minutes and see if it makes sense to you? --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: when I make the effort to start a discussion on your talk page, I don't need chunks of your response copied onto mine. Have some patience and keep discussions together in one place. That's a common courtesy for observers and other editors who may wish to contribute. Is that, at least, clear enough? --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my user name: I'm not female, but I'm very impressed of Rosa Luxemburg's saying about freedom and therefore the username RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom.

To be be honest, I didn't like the headline "Misuse of template." to be added to the following discussion. And therefore the headline "No misuse of template". Can you understand that motivation? --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should try harder to make section headings neutral, and I failed this time. Would you accept "Use of template" as a replacement? --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I've left a message an the article talk page. Now it's very late. See you! --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

(max. 180 day page view/edit count) --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]