User talk:Greengrounds

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liberace, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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) 02:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Deadbeef (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have submitted a draft edit of the introduction for Religious views of Adolf Hitler in a new section on its talk page. I have invited you and Ozhistory there so that a consensus may be made on the actual copy. Thanks, Deadbeef (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler

Greengrounds, there seems to be hope of progress now on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. No doubt some of your approach (particularly editing without discussing on talk page) is due to newness to wikipedia. However, I feel I must point out something you absolutely cannot do. You cannot change sourced text which you have not read to match a view you hold, but the cited author does not hold. To give a simple example, yesterday you changed the text quoting Bullock saying Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist to say that he called him a rationalist and materialist Catholic. Bullock said no such thing, in fact he said Hitler did not believe in God and "showed only the sharpest hostility" to the teachings of the Catholic church. You also changed the Enc. Brit. quote to cite Bormann in place of Hitler, when clearly the text describes Hitler's view. This all suggests that the issue of Hitler's views on religion is more complicated than you realise.

As for quoting Hitler speeches where he said he was "Christian", to prove that he was "Christian" - just do a little research on why he was saying that. Often it was because either Catholic leaders, for example, had condemned him as anti-Christian, or because Nazi texts like The Myth of the 20th Century had confirmed the Nazis were neo-pagans, and it was not politically expedient for Hitler's party to be seen as anti-Christian when they wanted to win seats at elections, or the support of the conservative President von Hindenberg. Another quote you like to give is that Hitler told a general he was a Catholic in 1941. Well, as you may or may not know, Hitler never trusted his generals, in large part because of their conservatism, and when the Catholic Claus von Stauffenberg finally tried to blow Hitler up in 1944, one of the reasons was Hitler's oppression of the church. I suggest you do read Bullock, but also just read through Hitler's Table Talk for yourself and get a feel for Hitler (per Bormann)'s views on a range of religious issues. The text is to be treated with some caution, but it is still worth reading. Now happy editing and enjoy your time on wikipedia! Goodbye. Ozhistory (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Christians have their reasons for publicly declaring their faith. Hitler was no different.Greengrounds (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deadbeef (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only said I apologize in advance IF you are legitimately retarded, I didn't say he was retarded. None the less, I will heed your warning. I do however wish to bring to your attention that he has also slandered me, repeatedly and publicly accusing me of vandalism, and making claims that I logged in as an anonymous user and undid his edits. I would appreciate the fair treatment and you should also warn him not to slander and make unfounded accusations.Greengrounds (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have once again submitted a draft lede paragraph for Religious views of Adolf Hitler at the bottom of the same section as before. I invite you and Ozhistory to comment on it. Dea db eef 02:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrounds, I am genuinely concerned by your behaviour. Half a dozen editors have now tried to engage with you over this page, but all we ever seem to get from you are highly personal attacks that completely fail to engage with the substance of the historical arguments. I think you should remember Deadbeef's earlier warning about being blocked. While I have noted that Ozhistory also appears to have an agenda, Ozhistory is at least thoughtful, considerate and takes the time and trouble to do proper research before altering the article. At the moment, you are not doing that. I suggest you need a very fast change of tack.Hcc01 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hcc01 (talk) you're one to talk! You tore up another user and came up with NOTHING... except for the braggartly, unfounded claim that "I am an expert on Hitler... you are not!". Okay bye.Greengrounds (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greengrounds - see my reply on the other page for my qualifications. Once again, you are being abusive - and what's worrying is that you cannot see it. I did not 'tear up' the other user - I pointed out errors of fact. I did not abuse them, and I agreed on some points. You on the other hand, are merely an extremely rude person who has so far said nothing constructive. Once more Greengrounds - write anything you like, as long as it's backed by good sources that have survived peer review. Otherwise, take your bias and your vandalism elsewhere. I will not respond to any more of your posts that merely contain childish abuse (which includes almost the entirety of your postings on Hitler's religious views). If you can engage intelligently with the substance of the debate, that's fine, and I'm happy to discuss matters with you. It might be helpful, especially to you if everyone else takes that approach as well.Hcc01 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.Hcc01 (talk) You pointed out "errors in fact" in a cocky abusive way, without providing a SLIVER of evidence that they were errors, other than you OPINION that they were errors. I'm sorry what have I done that's rude? You being overly sensitive does not equate to me being rude. If you can't handle reality (which you can't if you deny the Christian link to the killing of 6 million Jews), then of course you will be offended when reality bites you in the butt. You go around acting like a hypocrite, from time to time you will get called one. Anyway, COOL STORY, bro please stay off of my talk page with unfounded accusations of vandalism. If you feel I am vandalizing a Wiki, please feel free to take it to a mod, or at least point out the specific act of vandalism to me, so I am aware! My god. I hope you are using you PhD to teach high school history classes without putting an apologetic spin on things. You are really doing the world a disservice if you are. Keep in mind, you dictate your high school class however you want, but here on Wikipedia, you're not the boss. I am a full grown adult and I can think for myself, and I don't need someone bragging about their Phd to tell me how to think. I know how to use logic and rational thought, and I don't think you necessarily do. Greengrounds (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013 edit of Jihad article

The edit summary that you provided for a recent edit seemed misleading, and the edit itself appeared to insert information that would be generally considered incorrect, so I reverted the edit. I suggest a more cautious approach to editing this article in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it may seem unpopular to religionist apologists, the doctrine of Jihad is meant to be an "armed" struggle to spread the religion, as evidenced by real life action of it's practitioners and as evidenced by the highly relevant Encyclopedia on Islam citation that I provided.Greengrounds (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not that is true, any changes that broad should first be discussed on the article's talk page. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelatedly, please do not label good-faith edits as vandalism. Vandalism has a very precise meaning on Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Vandalism—and describing non-vandalistic edits as anything else can be considered a personal attack. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I had a complaint on his talk page as well, that he removed as "vandalism", and he has accused me of vandalism non stop, so I guess I've got him on personal attacks, too. But trust me, he had no right nor authority to come at me on my talk page with big red apostrophe triangles. It was not an edit in "good faith", why would you assume that? As for Jihad being and "armed" struggle vs just a "struggle", I do see the significance in that small distinction, and how painful it will be for people to accept that; I will be sure to use the talk page.Greengrounds (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Please explain your ommission of reference to the Polish situation both in your original insertion of text in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany and your subsequent attempt to use its revision as evidence of "POV pushing" by me.

Your text read only:

Catholic priests and bishops held no public protests. Instead, they prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undimished.^[1]

Which, after respectful consultation and encouragement from me, Hcc01 duly altered to:

On the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the German Army murdered up to 1,000 Polish priests, fearing they would be foci for discontent, while German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show their support for Germany's (and by extension, Hitler's) cause was undimished.^[2]

Please think harder before continuing your allegations, or naming me in your rants. You appear to wish to inflict as much reputational damage on me as you are able prior to your referral to administrators. This will only be used in further evidence against you. I again respectfully refer you to the multiple warnings given to you by a large number of editors, and suggest that the best thing that you could do to prevent a "topic ban" if not total ban is to begin by formally apologizing to me. Ozhistory (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar and you know it. Greengrounds (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute filed at WP:DRN

Hello Greengrounds. This message is to inform you that the ongoing content dispute at Religious views of Adolf Hitler has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please feel free to make your claim there, so independent third parties can evaluate the situation and suggest a course of action. Ozhistory, Hcc01, and IronMaidenRocks have also been notified of the filing, or will soon be notified. Thanks, Dea db eef 04:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, User talk:Greengrounds". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Historicity of Jesus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Historicity of Jesus without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greengrounds. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied again on my talk page. Anyway, you should consider that citing the name of a book, its authors and ISBN does not come anyway near a precise citation. A precise citation requires a page number or page numbers (but not hundreds of pages) and if it gets contested you could offer a short quote from it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big text== Changes to Historicity of Jesus article ==

Hello- I have left a couple of messages for you on the Historicity of Jesus talk page about the changes you made to the article.Smeat75 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you put very contentious changes into Tacitus on Christ, and a long tendentious edit into Christ myth theory, I reverted them all.Smeat75 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left another message for you at Talk:Tacitus on Christ.Smeat75 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should let you know that I have raised the problem, as I see it, of disruption caused to these articles by POV users such as you, with an admin, not to report you or try to get you banned or something, but to ask his advice. You can see what I wrote here - [1].Smeat75 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise there. Your POV is the one that should be embodied in the article. Well sourced material must be excluded if it does not meet your christian apologist POV. Greengrounds (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well clarify exactly what my POV is, so that you understand where I am coming from, in case of future disputes. Virtually all relevant authorities agree that there was such a person as Jesus, who was crucified by the orders of Pontius Pilate. One of the main reasons they all agree about that is because Tacitus says so. Josephus *probably* said so too. That is the neutral POV that the articles must get across, as far as I am concerned, and that is what I will do my best to make sure they continue to reflect. Not that Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead or was God incarnate etc. The reason I believe that to be the neutral point of view is because that is what the WP:RS say.Smeat75 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits and take heed from the case of User:Davidbena, whom I have warned in precisely the same terms that I have warned you (except the "snip" part). If you do not take heed from it, there will be a topic called "Atheist POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits". If there were articles which indulge in Christian apologetics I would know it, since I don't like it either, when done inside Wikipedia. So the accuse of doing Christian apologetics is a lame excuse. You are Davidbena's mirror image: he is an Yeshiva graduate and he considers the Bible to be infallible, you are his atheistic counterpart and you consider that the Bible is totally worthless. Both of you are POV-pushers and you accuse veteran editors of violating neutrality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, because no historians accept the historicity of J's miracles, and there is the possibility of those miracle claims interfering with what we can know to be true and false in the bible as a historical tool on jesus, I am an Atheist POV pusher? How so? Let me guess, you're a christian, right? So you have to believe the miracle claims? Well, historians, as I have cited clear as day would disagree. How can we discuss the historicity of jesus without exploring what he is famous for... the miracle claims. Which are not historical facts. Sorry, but that's life kid.--Greengrounds (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Christian and I don't believe in miracles. What I said about misquoting Ehrman is that he did not say Jesus miracles were refuted, he said they cannot be confirmed as historical facts. There is a difference between refutation and lack of confirmation. In fact, no amount of science is going to refute the possibility of miracles, since that is a philosophical position. There is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Scientists work with methodological naturalism and are free to adopt whatever metaphysics they like. What I said is that you should not bring fringe positions into the articles, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, nor indulge in copious copy/pasting without an obvious improvement to the article and certainly not as WP:Advocacy. You have to have respect for the scientific consensus even when you disagree with it. It is your right to disagree with it, but not to posit fringe theories in Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, the miracles are refuted HISTORICALLY. There are not people who are historians who believe they happened as historians, that is as refuted as they can be. Otherwise, anyone can make a miracle claim and no one can refute it historically is that what you're saying?Greengrounds (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, miracles could never be historical facts. But, history cannot refute miracles, it may only claim that they lack evidence, not that they did not happen. "Miracles cannot happen" is a bold metaphysical claim. History says instead "no miracle could be identified as a historical fact", since the methodology of history does not allow for proving miracles. Certain miracles could be falsified as tricks, if there is enough specific evidence, but this not applies to miracles in general (i.e. to all miracles). In Ehrman's words, historians could only say that the explanation that a miracle has happened is the most improbable, but there is no certainty that miracles cannot happen. In case they do/did happen, they cannot be shown to be historical, that's what Ehrman said. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, basically, impossible for even scientists to say "miracles cannot happen," because they, well, do happen, given the extreme vagueness of that term. Any spontaneous remission of a disease would qualify as a "miracle" by the standard definition of that term. There is a question here about whether the alleged miracles in which Jesus was involved included any sort of metaphysical basis, and unfortunately, we don't have enough evidence regarding the cases reported to say anything abut that one way or another. I do note that there have been in recent years several claims that several of the alleged miracles of Jesus could be explained by Jesus allegedly "curing" people with psychosomatic illnesses, which might have had no physical reason. That is certainly possible. However, that is a different matter entirely.

Look, you may or may not believe this, but in general most of his here, with a few exceptions, but only a few, are not going to be lunatic fringe religion POV pushers. I know I'm a Catholic, and I am more than willing to acknowledge that there are several matters relating to religion, like some of the similar cures at Fatima, which could easily be "explained away" as not being "miracles," but just psychosomatic cures. That makes sense. The same could be true of Jesus's miracles, although, honestly, we don't have any evidence to say anything about them. At least one leading historian, Michael Grant, more or less said that historians can't be called in to assess information about which they have no concrete details, like Jesus's miracles, and that all they can really do is repeat what the contemporary sources on which the statements are based said and the thinking of modern medicine and other science regarding what might have happened there. But, yeah, even in those cases, as medicine doesn't yet have a clear reason why spontaneous remissions of cancer and the like happened, they really can't rule out "miracles," even if there is no really good reason to believe they necessarily were miracles, because we can't explain what heppaned scientifically yet.

You do seem to me, and I think to others, to possibly be rather seriously overstating, and possibly overdramatizing?, some of the disputes you have recently been involved in. Try to tone down the language a little, and perhaps admit that maybe you yourself might be once in a while overstating things if others indicate you might be, and you will probably encounter fewer difficulties.

P.S. One of our basic principles here is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By logical extension, that more or less means that anything found in what is considered in the academic world an "encyclopedia" probably can and should be included here somewhere. For material like this, which can be contentious, the best way to substantiate an argument is to find something in an encyclopedia or textbook (preferably one written to be a textbook, not just a book perhaps misused as one) or similar work which says something similar to what you want to say, and you are very likely to find that people will more or less have to agree with you about it being included somewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Re: miracles the miracle claims are not considered historical facts by any historian. They are considered falsehoods, lies. Anyone who thinks they actually happened would be considered fringe.Greengrounds (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually have a source for the statement that no historian considers them accurate, honestly, I would love to see it. If you don't, honestly, you just seem to be engaging in the same willfully problematic behavior that has led to your current situation. And, FWIW, I have seen academic journals which indicate that at least some of the miraculous healings, given the tumultuous social situation at the time, could well have been "healings" of psychosomatic disorders. Honestly, your above statement does nothing to support anyone's possible belief in either your objectivity regarding this matter, or even your basic research of it. If you continue to make such blanket statements without providing clear evidence of them, honestly, may I suggest that you refrain from editing material. We are based on the sources, and your statement above, honestly, actually disagrees with at least some of them, which is very problematic, considering you very unwisely chose to use the blanket word "all". John Carter (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the resurrection? I'm not claiming it didn't happen...I'm not saying it didn't happen. Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian...

What about it? That is an entirely different point, as any rational person would know. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go, stud. It's nonsense to think any academic scholar would attest to the historicity of miracles. That's Bart Ehrman BTW making that very basic assertion that seems to be so hard to grasp. Magic doesn't happen, aight? No such thing as magic, capice?Greengrounds (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nonsense is all your own. Your inability to respond in a rational manner on this subject indicates your own clear bias. Frankly, your comments here, particularly the refusal to respond to the points I made in a rational manner, indicates rather strongly that you are capable of dealing with this material in a rational fashion. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you take it seriously when John Carter says "If you continue to make such blanket statements without providing clear evidence of them, honestly, may I suggest that you refrain from editing material. We are based on the sources". I don't know if you realise that he is an admin, he probably would not block or ban you himself, but if he recommends sanctions for you he will be listened to. Believe it or not, I do not like to see users banned or blocked, but that is the very clear path I see you on, and before much longer too if you go on like this. "We are based on sources" - you need to back up everything you put into an article with a reliable source, you need to slow way down from your current hectic activity, you need to discuss anything likely to be contentious on an article talk page before you put it in an article, or your time as an editor in this subject area will be short, and that is not a threat, it is the reality of the situation. Also making remarks to other editors such as "There ya go, stud" is not a way to remain a valued member of this community.Smeat75 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have issues, please stop dragging them all over wikipedia. Stop harassing me. Stop following me on every talk page. Stay off my talk page. Stop spamming the talk pages with your admin hearing you have me on. Please apply your own standards to your own edits as well as others besides mine. I left you a note on the Historicity of Jesus talk page where you can justify or explain your previous actions. But other than that, please leave me alone unless you have something specific to say about an edit or a topic that I am discussing on wikipedia. Greengrounds (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not post on this talk page anymore.Smeat75 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2013 (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) 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review wikipedia policy and guidelines

I believe, according to policies and guidelines, this edit can reasonably be said to be completely counterproductive. Please consider this a warning, or, rather, another warning, regarding your own recent conduct. Should counterproductive edits of this type continue, you are very likely to face yet further discussion on the relevant noticeboards, either after the current discussion closes, or, possibly, during it. Should that happen, I believe it is very unlikely that you would not be subject to some more formal warning, if not sanctions. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I'd like to see you apply that same standard to her various edits and counterproductive comments on talk pages about me and my edits and/or style, but alas I don't expect I will get that type of consistency from you. Greengrounds (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that the problem here is your own apparent inability to apply almost any standards to your own conduct. Also, while I agree some of the article talk page comments are problematic, honestly, that includes several of your own on those pages as well. Article talk pages are to discuss changes, real and proposed, to the articles, and yes, unfortunately, sometimes, they seem to require discussing other editors, particularly when those editors seem to be regularly involved in POV pushing. The easiest way for you to not have to face such comments in the future is, honestly, to behave in a fashion which does not prompt others to feel the need to make such statements in the first place. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's victim blaming. She can be held accountable for her comments not me.Greengrounds (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2013 (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) 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Relationship between religion and science, 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) See you on the talk page of the article. BTW, I gave reasons for the edits in the edit summary either you didn't read them, or you didn't think they are valid. If you don't think they are valid, please explain it to me here on this talk page. Also I thought I'd respectfully point out to you your absence in applying this policy to PICO's edits when he unilaterally removed 60,000 characters from a wiki, and that I find this action quite hypocritical on your part.Greengrounds (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm WadeSimMiser. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Jesus, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. WadeSimMiser (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jesus with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for personal attacks and edit warring, as you did at User talk:Akhilleus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. 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. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing to post personal attacks while logged out, I have extended your block for another two weeks. The next time it will be indefinite. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued block evasion to harass and attack other editors with 209.91.107.175 and 209.91.107.158. 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole issue seems to have stemmed from a situation that spiralled out of control. Note that indefinite doesn't mean forever. You can appeal your block noting how you plan to move forward and not repeat the behaviour that got you blocked. See WP:GAB (essay) and WP:APPEAL (guideline). IRWolfie- (talk)

Behaviour continues

A note to administrators, and in light of the above remark by User:IRWolfie-. This editor continues to use IPs to make vandal edits, randomly undoing the latest edits by myself, user:Smeat75, user:Kudpung, user:Cynwolfe and others involved in alerting admins of his abusive edits, and general disruptive presence - as he promised/threatened to continue to do when blocked. Here is the latest set I know of, but the practice continues regularly. Ozhistory (talk)

Considering there was an ANI hatchet job being done on them I can Greengrounds annoyance and people explode every so often. I think encouraging them to stop the attacks and to try and engage with the project considering he/she had many unproblematic edits (or perhaps another project like [2] where I presume they remain unblocked as a sign of being able to make good faith contributions) is the best way forward, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, you may have occasionally agreed with an edit he made, but I am assuming you are making these comments without knowing the extent of his destructive behaviour. Apart from the misrepresentation of sources, deletion of sourced content, and repeated refusal to engage in respectful dialogue with multiple editors, he blanked the whole Jesus page and filled it with crude, childish obscenities and left obscene messages on multiple editors talk pages (most of which admins have removed and are not visible any more). On being banned he promised to disrupt "a list" of editors whom he associated with the ban, for "the next ten years", and using multiple sock accounts has continued to randomly place abusive comments on user talk pages, and randomly delete recent edits by users on his "list". Greengrounds has been encouraged for months and months to "stop the attacks and to try and engage with the project". He has never done so, and continues, despite being blocked, not to do so. Ozhistory (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of vandalism issues etc before the last month, but I think its worth encouraging someone not to do that and to instead encourage them to engage constructively. Blocks aren't punitive, if he can show he can change then he should be unblocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of vandalism: here. Ozhistory (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another - here Ozhistory (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new round here and here. Ozhistory (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the start of a fresh round: see threat here. Ozhistory (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Greengrounds, 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. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Complicity in the Holocaust, Robert P. Ericksen Cambridge University Press Pg. 109-110
^ Robert P. Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 109-110

[1] Complicity in the Holocaust, Robert P. Ericksen Cambridge University Press Pg. 109-110

[2] Robert P. Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 109-110

[1]

[2]