User talk:Sahansdal

I don't know yet how wiki talk works. I'm posting to attract an answer, I guess...

Welcome

As a new user, you are restricted for 4 days from editing pages that are semi-protected. In the mean time, you are welcome to go to Talk:Jesus and make proposals there. Other edits can add you suggestions to the article if there is consensus to do so. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I'm going to add a default welcome message with some helpful beginning links as well. Good luck:

Welcome!

Hello, Sahansdal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Jesus edits

Sorry but removed, please see WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSTS. You may want to discuss at the Teahouse. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted similar edits on several other articles. Kiss of Judas, Bargain of Judas, etc.

On Judas Iscariot: User:Rbreen, removed what User:Dougweller had already removed. See WP:Edit warring. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message:

You recently removed my contribution to the "Kiss of Judas" page as not being constructive. On what basis did you decide to take this action? Are you familiar, as I am, with Gnostic/Mystic teaching? It takes a considerable amount of effort to put together a post like the one you removed. Sahansdal (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it wasn't supported by WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed it for the same reason. If you think that Wahler's self-published books meet our criteria at WP:RS and can be used, you'll need to convince people at WP:RSN before adding it again. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your request on my talk page, the only thing else I can advise you to do is to try to find the same material sourced to something that meets our criteria at WP:RS and WP:NPOV (particularly WP:WEIGHT and even then to try to discuss it article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to bring better scholarship to Wikipedia

Back in 2006, I dived into WP. I thought I knew what I was doing, but I didn't. I got in a lot of scraps on religion pages. Over the years I've figured some things out. WP is about summarizing RSs, not pursuing an agenda. If you are here to push an agenda, you will have a hard time. But if you are here to use your expertise to make these pages better, then you can do it. The question is, are you really ready to set aside your particular viewpoint? WP is about what the most reliable published sources say, even when you or I know better. If you make an edit that makes a page reflect reliable sources better, who can complain? The basic formula is simple. First, look at a WP page. Then, look at a reliable source on the same topic. What is missing from the WP page? With religion pages, often there's historical information in the RS that's not in the WP page. Summarize the missing information into the WP page, citing the RS. Who can argue? Don't get in big fights (he says). Instead, make the page more like the RSs, one improvement at a time. If you have already caused a stir on the Jesus page, an apology would do wonders for how others will treat you. If you're mature enough to apologize and ask for a do over, you'll have a better time on the page. I haven't seen the Talk page, but it looks like folks are reverting you. That's my advice, and thanks for asking. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Gospel of Judas, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Gospel of Judas are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one item on the nothere list that I plead guilty to, and you should give people a break for it. Not "being familiar with the aims" - which means verifiable sources not knowledge. Tough to read whole articles of know-nothing citations. Give me some time, I'll be in line soon. I appreciate Jim's tone, not some others. I am not self-promoting! I give my books away. I have also spent $35k advertising the material. I don't care about return (obviously). But if I do know more than anyone else about something, I say so. Sorry, if you disagree for some reason. Sahansdal (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTFORUM

I removed your last post from Talk:Gospel of Judas partly because we're off topic (including myself) but primarily because, even while denying that you are promoting anything, you managed to promote your book to "anyone who wants it". That's exactly why you're on the brink of administrative sanctions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, you know. You might want to stop by WP:ANI and ask for the topic ban -- the alternative is an indefinite block and several people there are well more than open to that alternative. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for only being here to promote your book and fringe theory per this thread.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I mention it isn't promoting it. THIS IS A FREE SITE. NO ONE PAYS FOR ANYTHING HERE. I sure as hell wouldn't want to promote myself HERE if that was my intention. I told you, no one else understands the Gospel of Judas. That is the truth. My cites are only for others' benefit. Sorry it doesn't work for Wiki. I have no further interest in Wiki, so I will not be a problem. I don't see any real value in it if it is just the lowest common denominator. I hope it fails, actually. Sahansdal (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wait just a minute. ..... I'm accused of doing something I didn't even do! "Replacing one unsourced comment with another more to my liking" on the Gospel of Judas article -- It ISN'T EVEN MY COMMENT. It was conflated with the next paragraph from some other person's comment. Geesh. Like I said in my comment before: try reading my comments correctly. I'm only interested in a better article. If I say I know more than others, IT IS BECAUSE I DO! Sorry if you or someone else doesn't think so. You people are like Trump, not fair, just capricious and vindictive. You will not find vandalism, or other misuse, only "spam." Fine. I posted my website and book a few times because it is all I have! I know it isn't appropriate here now, but I never even considered it as spam. It is just for those who may be interested. If I was only interested in spamming, I would not do it HERE! This is a poor site for paying prospects! I will not do it again. I have other complaints about the capricious derogatory comments about me, but I don't have the skills to go back and forth to the Admin. site to correct them. Nearly every cite of improper Wiki editing is on a TALK page, which to any layman means you can TALK. I guess not on Wiki. It is for debate, so I thought. So I see it is not. IF I was trolling it would be in the ARTICLE, not in TALK. This complete block is ridiculous overkill. Get a grip, people.... Sahansdal (talk) 1:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2018 (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.

And no, talk pages are not for debate. Wikipedia is not a forum. The reference desks are, like the name says, a place to ask for references. Article talk pages are for improving the article within the site's policies and guidelines, which means no original research. Personal attacks and continued crankery on your part (i.e. "I'm the only one who knows what's right and no one else can ever be") will only result in your talk page access being revoked.

You need to accept that your behavior was the problem here, that your choices where what got you blocked. It has nothing to do with what anyone believes (as demonstrated by the fact that the community, consisting of members of various beliefs, called for you to be blocked), it's entirely about how you acted. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's NOT "entirely about how you acted," as I SPECIFICALLY pointed out in the accusation cited that is provably FALSE. Is this how you run things here? No wonder the articles suck. 'Crankery' is not the issue. Wtf! Sahansdal (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single so-called "expert" in the Gospel of Judas article who knows literally the first thing about it! (JUDAS is the sacrifice.) I can't help it. I have said so repeatedly. At least three times I have said I can't post my own source. I am looking for help and IDEAS from you! What do you want? Grovelling? I said I would not spam. I want a good article. I would think you would, too. You do not have it now. Who will do it now? Sahansdal (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take a day off, contemplate how other people might have perceived someone (else) who posts the way you post, and then come back with that in mind.

At this point, the only reason we're giving you the privilege of using your talk page on this privately owned site is to appeal this block. If you use it for other purposes or you leave others with no hope that you'll ever make a thoughtful appeal (fury-guided screed isn't thoughtful, no matter how proud it may make you feel), then that privilege can and will be revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I need to TELL you? I am NOT SPAMMING. I provided my sites FOR REFERENCE. I don't need book sales. This is last place I would advertise. OK??? SORRY it is verboten. I WON'T DO IT AGAIN. DO YOU HEAR ME NOW? I came to TALK pages to get HELP. I get s*** instead! You be on the receiving end of this c*** and see what it does to YOUR "behavior"! I have plenty to offer Wiki. I have SAID so. Why don't you help me to give it under all these rules, instead of trying to kick me in the a**? Sahansdal (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a "thoughtful appeal" which you IGNORED and did not correct the cited falsehood, then you misquoted me AGAIN ("no one else can ever be" -- I never said that!). You should not be an admin. Sahansdal (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're still acting on the assumption that your personal views are what our article needs, and that mainstream academia is useless in comparison. Doesn't matter if I'm not copying and pasting your exact words, that's the idea behind almost all of your posts, and that's why you've been shown the door. We're a site that just summarizes mainstream academia and if you don't like that then you should have looked for a different site a long time ago.

You have admitted that your book is something that we wouldn't cite -- think really hard why it fails our reliable sourcing policy. You were clearly on the talk pages to spread knowledge of your book and your ideas, which is promotionalism and spamming even if you didn't plan to make money off of it.

If you wanted to help, then you could have found mainstream academic sources to summarize on the relevant topics. We're not an academic publisher, so going on and on about how wonderful the book you wrote is and how useless all the other books are was just a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. Your book would need to be published by an academic publisher (like Brill Publishers or Oxford UP), and professional reviews or further academic works would have to show that the ideas in that book have found acceptance in mainstream academia. This is not the place to get that done, though.

At this point, your only chance of being unblocked at this point is to:

stop editing this page for six months (don't try registering another account, either, or we'll treat any future attempts to cite or even mention your work by any new accounts as block evasion on your part)
come back after those six months (or longer) and file another unblock request that:
- shows you understand that your behavior was the issue
- doesn't blame other people
- lets us know that you will use talk pages for realistic article improvement, not for proselytizing, not for glorifying yourself, not for airing your personal views -- just discussing how articles can reasonably better summarize mainstream academic or journalistic sources
- agree to a topic ban from articles relating to Christianity, at least for another six months
post one or two examples of useful changes you'd make right now if you were unblocked (don't post the whole article, just say in this article, I would change the line that says "blah blah blah" to "yadda yadda yadda," citing this source, because "blah blah blah" doesn't have a proper source or something like that)

Almost any divergence from this plan will result in your talk page access being revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still ignore that the case against me was based partially on A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. I pointed out the line, you look it up this time -- blocking is YOUR action. If this were a court, your case would be thrown out right now. NO, I am not acting like my personal views are what is needed (although it is true). I came to TALK FOR YOUR HELP. I was informing readers that I have something to offer. I was NOT POSTING. It is on TALK! I wanted ideas on how to get it out. I DID get one useful suggestion from another admin. WHY CAN'T YOU HELP? You seem only interested in punishment. I believe I showed the relevance of "Apophasis" from a much better source than Gangne's. Maybe I should have left his ridiculous know-nothing quotation, but what's wrong with another that is more on point? You never acknowledge that I not only claim knowledge, but I do my best to PROVE it. The problem for all of us is there is not a single reliable source that is informed. THAT is why I came to TALK, not to Spam. Sahansdal (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Since it appears you're not even capable of the sort of self reflection that would be required to make a valid unblock request:

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]