User talk:Evert Wandelaar

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Evert Wandelaar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Darius the Mede have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between our articles and an essay or a published paper[edit]

There's a huge difference. In an essay, etc you can use sources to build an argument that those sources don't actually make. Here we basically build on articles on sources that discuss the subject of the article. Please read carefully no original research. I struggled with this at first and had edits reverted because they were original research - which they were. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug,

To write something with coherence you need to use some logic it seems to me. I did read the guidelines casually and concluded you are allowed to use original research to make a point.

In this case I mention the results of original research, namely that the Persian king Darius who in the Elephantine papyri is mentioned together with a Jewish high priest Johanan is Darius II.

Considering this combination of names and positions is quite unique and there hadn't been another high priest named Johanan before I conclude the persons in the book of Ezra and Elephantine paryri are the same.

I think using this kind of logic is within the wikipedia guidelines. Evert Wandelaar (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving this to the article talk page. Evert Wandelaar, I just do not understand what you're trying to do. The article mentions Darius I, and you are talking about Darius II. What is the relevance?PiCo (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Now two months after a sudden out of the blue block it still hasn't been reviewed except by a corrupt administrater who in the mean time has been identified as a sock puppet himself!

Insinuations are the basis for this block: I am connected with another editor I do not know and who actually is in disagreement with me. His notion is Egypt was during the reign of Araxerxes II part of the Persian empire while my edit states the opposite!

As mentioned by administrator Bbb23 editor Hekwos uses a hidden internet address!

This way any innocent can be blocked in an instant.

Evert Wandelaar (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Making accusations against others, like "a corrupt administrater who in the mean time has been identified as a sock puppet himself" is not going to get you unblocked. The "review" was done by an imposter, not by an admin, and was quickly reverted by another editor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

REVIEWING ADMINISTRATOR Boing! said Zebedee IS A SOCKET PUPPETEER

This is proven by the edit of 12:41, 30 May 2017 where he signes with the name of administrator Vanjagenije who earlier already was blocked for being a socket puppeteer!

Further, he didn't review the validity of my block, he just declined it without any reason.

Evert Wandelaar (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now two months after a sudden out of the blue block it still hasn't been reviewed except by a corrupt administrater who in the mean time has been identified as a sock puppet himself!

Insinuations are the basis for this block: I am connected with another editor I do not know and who actually is in disagreement with me. His notion is Egypt was during the reign of Araxerxes II part of the Persian empire while my edit states the opposite!

As mentioned by administrator Bbb23 editor Hekwos uses a hidden internet address!

This way any innocent can be blocked in an instant.

Higher Wikipedia authorities should review the misuse of this instrument.

Evert Wandelaar (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference:

Hekwos' last version:

Due to the statement in the book of Esther that Ahasuerus' empire reached from Ethiopia to India, Petrus Comestor in his Historia Scholastica identified Ahasuerus as Artaxerxes III who is remembered for his conquest of Egypt. (Esther 10:1-2) However Egypt had already been part of the empire of Artaxerxes II although lost in a rebellion before the end of his reign.

My versions before and after Hekwos' appearance:

During the reign of Artaxerxes II however Egypt wasn't part of the Persian empire as stated in Esther 1:1. Petrus Comestor in his Historia Scholastica identified Ahasuerus as Artaxerxes III (Esther 10:1-2).

On his accession however Artaxerxes II lost Egypt to pharaoh Amyrtaeus after which it wasn't part of the Persian empire anymore. In his Historia Scholastica [1] Petrus Comestor identified Ahasuerus (Esther 10:1-2) as Artaxerxes III who in agreement with Esther 1:1 reconquered Egypt.

What these texts prove is:

I have a different opinion about Egypt being part of the Persion empire during the reign of Artaxerxes II.
My writing style is different.
I simply refined my first to my last edit like I use to do.
I actually added references as asked for by the accusing party, including the original Wikisource Latin text.

Decline reason:

Making accusations against others, like "a corrupt administrater who in the mean time has been identified as a sock puppet himself" is not going to get you unblocked. The "review" was done by an imposter, not by an admin, and was quickly reverted by another editor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't review the validity of my block, yet you declined my unblock request. Nothing worse than a corrupt cop, you should be blocked for it.

Evert Wandelaar (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2017 (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 have revoked your talk page editing privileges due to their abuse. Have a nice day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to recognize his POV[edit]

To whom it may concern: why the lady doth protest too much, methinks? Because he wants Jesus born exactly 480 years after the Temple got rebuilt, see [1]. For him, Jesus has to be born exactly 480 years after the Temple got rebuilt. More precisely, since the altar of the Temple got consecrated. So, obviously, he cannot make his claim believable, that's why he has to play fast and loose with mainstream history. For him Koresh in Hebrew cannot mean Cyrus in English, because this rock-solid mainstream view of historians and theologians of all stripes and colors ruins his claim about the birth of Jesus. So, that's why he was pushing his POV piecemeal, in order to WP:Advocate his view that Jesus got born precisely 480 years after the Temple got sanctified. There is no way to achieve such result by playing fair (by the WP:RULES). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]