User talk:JoseAziz78

Welcome!

Hello, JoseAziz78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

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:Acharya S, 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. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, That entire section MUST be removed for the reasons explained here in my recent comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#Personal_name

JoseAziz78 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Christ myth theory, 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'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 18:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amortias, those comments in the Acharya S section do not belong there and are only there to degrade and defame.

JoseAziz78 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Christ myth theory, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Christ myth theory. Amortias (T)(C) 18:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you guys are doing is maliciously smearing Acharya S with false information so I will report you to the proper authorities.JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're just stopping you from pushing a religious bias into the articles. A summary of site policies and guidelines you need to start observing or you're just gonna end up blocked:

Wikipedia is not censored. If material is reliably sourced, it is given due weight.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern with material on Wikipedia, you need to resolve it through Wikipedia practices such as WP:Dispute resolution. You could also email the Volunteer Response Team for a more private discussion with somebody from Wikipedia.

Concerns about material should not be taken off-Wikipedia. Threats of legal action are specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy; the threat of legal or criminal proceedings leads to a chilling effect on discussions and harms, rather than helps, the consensus-building process. The blocking policy is very clear: making a threat of legal action is grounds for an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A statement suggesting the filing of a lawsuit is sufficient to count as a second threat. As a result:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you do not have the right to block me as I made no mention of any legal threat. JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is an admin, as am I, and had every right to block you. The offending language was here, "report you to the proper authorities", and on ANI, "Wikipedia should be sued". There may have been other instances, perhaps rather than belligerently telling Fred, a highly experienced and valued admin, that he doesn't know what he's doing, you should ask him "What did I do wrong, and how should I fix it"? Otherwise, your block will most assuredly stand. Killer Chihuahua 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

How to avoid getting blocked

You are probably going to be blocked very, very soon. To avoid this, you need to: 1) Clarify either here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JoseAziz78 that you did not intend for any legal threats when you referred to "the proper authorities." 2) Cite reliable academic sources at Talk:Christ myth theory and Talk:Acharya S. Forum posts and Facebook posts do not count, because anyone can make those. Acharya S's books only give her opinion about her, not what scholars assess of her work. You need to find a book, preferably from a university press or by a professional historian, that defends Acharya S. Google Books is a good place to start. Otherwise, your claims that everyone's out t will only come across as paranoid attacks made by a fanatic who just wants to censor the site. 3) You need to start making some constructive edits to other topics, to make it look like you're here to build the encyclopedia, instead of being here with a non-neutral agenda.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mention of any legal threat JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see but, it's okay for people to defame, degrade and maliciously smear. How convenient that scholars in support of her work are not allowed.

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology

JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading suggestions

Please read (and even study!) the following:

the Neutral Point of View policy, paying special attention to the Due and undue weight section
Righting Great Wrongs, which is part of Tendentious editing

Reading and applying these may mean the difference between your becoming a valued and productive member of Wikipedia, and being a visitor of short duration. Killer Chihuahua 19:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have been blocked for violating NLT - if you should choose to strike the offending language and request your block be lifted, be sure to follow the instructions on Appealing a block carefully, and read the links I have given above before attempting to edit again. Killer Chihuahua 19:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no mention of any legal threat so, I have been blocked anyway. JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoseAziz78, a couple of the statements you made[1] and [2] could be interpreted as a legal threat or to have a chilling effect on contributors. If you are willing to look at these links and then request an unblock stating that you are withdrawing any legal threat made and explaining how you intend to edit in future we might be able to sort this one out quickly. Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your best chance to get unblocked

1) Do not bring up Acharya S, Christ Mythicism, or other users until after you are unblocked.

2) Apologize for language that was interpreted as a legal threat, clarify that you absolutely did not intend any treat, erase the bit "proper authorities," and ask to have "Wikipedia and some editors should be sued" stricken from ANI. Promise to not use that language again.

3) Provide some indication of other topics besides Acharya S or the Christ myth theory or you might want to work on, with specific examples. That is, find a page you'd make a change to, and say what change you'd make (for example, "I found a grammar error on the Cat page").

4) Make it clear that you're interested in learning how to neutrally cite reliable (academic or journalistic) sources. Ask if a user is willing to adopt you. I do not adopt users, but other people do.

Other approaches are likely to keep your block in place, or even get your talk page access revoked. If/when you're unblocked, then would be the time to go to Talk:Christ myth theory or Talk:Acharya S and cite academic sources that support changes to those articles. Doing so before then will only make you appear to be a tendentious single purpose account, which will make it less likely that you'd be unblocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]