User talk:58.99.101.165

Hi 58.99.101.165! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Augmented Seventh🎱 18:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Christ myth theory, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think this article is heavily biased and doesn't represent the academia. I removed sources which are not academic but published by biased publishers. The article is supposed to build on accepted historical research and not fringe book publishers. I have many questions, for example what is the rationale for using these sources? They are not academic sources. Why is it not constructive to remove it. I'm sure there are lots of academic sources you can find. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll through the talkpages; we've had this discussion many times before. Ehrman is a reputed scholar; even his blogs are acceptable as sources. And a priori rejecting publications from Christian authors because they're Christian, is, well, a biased attitude. If you think those sources are not acceptable you'll have to gain consensus to removd them, on a one-by-one basis, with substantial arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, blog posts are not an acceptable source. And there's no bias against Christian authors at all, there are a lot of Christians in academia. The sources are not academic and should be removed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yez, blogz by published scholars are accepted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that say in the guidelines? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You let your own religious bias affect you. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia says:"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

A fact is fact, a book published by Harper Collins is not academic. People in academia can also publish books outside of the academia. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christ myth theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You're edit-warring; stop it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've reached WP:3RR. Next revert, and I'll request a block for you, if not someone already does so before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely mishandled. There should be a third party look into this. Blog posts are not an acceptable source as you claim. And academic sources should be preferred over non academic ones but you are not interesting in disscusing it. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Remsense ‥ 论 08:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not harrassed any editors, I have simply asked if blog posts as sources on academic articles should be removed or not but all kind of discussion keep getting deleted. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I'm looking at Special:Diff/1290398722 and Special:Diff/1290399070. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you allow religious bias on wiki? Science is science and religion is religion. It's separated, or is it not? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 58.99.101.165, please don't message me about whether an article should have a source or not. You can discuss this on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have protected the page from edits and you're unwilling to discuss the issue. Articles should obviously have academic sources and not links to blog posts. That page should be looked into, because it's filled with non-academic references and that's not reliable sources, that's not the policy of Wikipedia. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are letting your personal bias affect you. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to read wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When have I made a personal attack? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]=. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack to say that someone is biased. Everyone is biased in some way but we should do the best to be neutral in relation to the sources. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't let your personal bias affect the wiki. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't let your personal bias affect the wiki. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming highly disruptive across multiple message boards. Please just knock it off. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just interested in a discussion and correct sourcing. I have never had the intention of being disruptive. I want to contribute. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. You're wasting my time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a discussion about incorrect use of sources is not allowed? Incorrect use should be modified or removed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to ANI was removed as it was unsigned and had no section header. I'm happy for my actions to be looked at, so I've restored it and added the signature and header. When you post about someone at ANI you are meant to notify them, but I'm aware so that's not necessary in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed it, or there might have been a bug, I'm using a quite old computer, I apologise for that. I just don't think it's fair to shut down discussions, I think freedom of thought and speech are something to be valued and also integrity about knowledge. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LISTEN for an explanation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will disagree with this and I don't think fair to be blocked since I didn't make anymore edits but have been having the discussion in on the talk pages. I feel it's more to silence someone, to not give people an opportunity to respond. I think the page is biased and sources are not properly used or referenced. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And many people here should read about neutrality and proper referencing. Will you be willing to help with the page that uses blog posts as references? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will disagree with this and I don't think fair to be blocked since I didn't make anymore edits but have been having the discussion in on the talk pages. I feel it's more to silence someone, to not give people an opportunity to respond. I think the Christ myth page is biased and sources are not properly used or referenced. I respect everyone's right to an opinion but shutting down all discussions is not a fruitful tactic, according to me. I wouldn't make any edits on the page without discussing it in the talk page first. I think it's strange that blog posts can be used to be claimed as an academic source and that is against wiki guidelines too. Sources should also reflect what is actually said in them. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeal is not meant to be a rehash of the arguments that got you blocked in the first place.

Considering the litany of warnings issued leading up to this block, I think the block is good, and shouldn't have come as a surprise.

I suggest you sit this one out (it's only very short after all), and think about how to avoid getting into similar trouble again in the future. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2025 (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.

@ToBeFree, Rsjaffe, and Rosguill: looks like this IP is evading their block: Special:Contributions/110.77.200.120 and the latest IP-additions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Prophet and Teacher by William R. Herzog. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't have access to different IP addresses, so that is not me. There are plenty of other people that are active on the talk pages not just me. I see that you have had many discussions with different members before. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for block evasion.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

{{unblock|reason=I haven't done any so called "block evasion." I'm waiting patiently to be able to participate in the talk pages again. The talk pages in question are well visited, and before I joined here there have been countless similar discussions being held as the ones I had. Are there any evidence for block evasion? Who make sure that the rules are followed here? It says topics should be open for a week at least at the noticeboards, and blog posts shouldn't be used, and still, noticeboards get shut down immediately and users keep breaking wikis reference rules. I wish for an administrator who is not religious and not biased to take a closer look at this ban. Again, where is evidence for ban evasion? I have one IP, nothing more. [[Special:Contributions/58.99.101.165|58.99.101.165]] ([[User talk:58.99.101.165#top|talk]]) 13:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

The technical data is unclear. The edits from the other IP addresses are not an exact match, but there's some fakery going on. The behaviour is a clear match, but I can't rule out a joe job. To be clear, the technical evidence doesn't indicate this is what's going on, I just can't rule it out. --Yamla (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

So if there's no technical evidence it means I'm innocent. If you have seen the discussion similar talk have been going on flr 20 years. It's not new and I'm not the only one active in the talk page which is locked now. Wikipedia should have a scientific basis and not religious bias. Can some admin please review and remove the Religious bias from the Jesus pages. I am doing this in good faith for balance, science and unbiased.I haven't evaded block. If I had many accouns I wouldn't need to request to be unbloced.58.99.101.165 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"So if there's no technical evidence it means I'm innocent" is seriously flawed logic. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2025 (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.

Whenever it is the block is lifted on your IP, I want you to consider something: your assumption that people are opposing you because you are interfering with their religious convictions is not actually correct. Many of the people who disagreed with your edit approach are, in fact, non-Christians and / or Atheists. However we are operating in a specific context wherein certain types of credential are seen as bringing about reliability. This means we see theologians as reliable for theology regardless of our personal beliefs. I hope, in the future, you will strengthen your assumption of good faith. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for engaging in a discussion. I agree, it's not always like that. For me, I just wanted to improve the article with proper sourcing. I have never doubted that there are historical sources where Jesus is mentioned and that there are many experts on the matter. For me it is just a matter of what types of sources and their context, blog posts etc, or smaller religious publishers. There are a lot of great sources on the matter so it can be improved. Immediately when I started to question the quality of some sources focus was on shutting down the discussion and that is what I think is wrong. My intention was just to improve the article and not to push a theory that Jesus didn't exist at all, as some of the other contributors claimed that I claimed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]