User talk:Jesuslawyer

Welcome!

Hello, Jesuslawyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tags on 11:11 (numerology)[edit]

Thanks for your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. However, speedy deletes aren't appropriate for this article, since it's already gone through an AFD. You might bring it up for AFD again, that link contains instructions on how to do so. TheRingess (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on 11:11[edit]

A prod template is also inappropriate for this article. The article has been through an AFD, the article was not deleted as a result. Prod's are appropriate before an article goes through AFD. TheRingess (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11:11 has nothing to do with numerology. you are promoting it for the profit of others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

11:11 is a time of day. This article exists to document certain beliefs that people have about this time of day. Numerology is about beliefs that people have about numbers, so the two are linked. The article does not exist to promote any one belief.TheRingess (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in 11:11 (numerology). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

March 2007[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 11:11. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Real96 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. - Alison^☺ 06:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27 March 2007[edit]

Hello Jesuslawyer; I see that you're engaged in the same kind of conduct that got you blocked yesterday, and have now created this article, which looks very much like spam to me. I suggest that you find a different type of article to edit, or I will block you again, but this time for much longer than Alison did yesterday. Please start communicating. A Train^{take the} 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuslawyer, do you understand why I and the other editors you've come across think that your article and edits are advertising? I don't want you to think we're being unreasonable, but you must understand that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your book. I'm happy to entertain any arguments you might have why your edits shouldn't be considered spam, if you have one. A Train^{take the} 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I saw your statement, which I'll paste here for convenience:

this has nothing to do with advertising. the website linked to makes no money at all. this has been put up for deletion by theringess, who is the person actually advertising. I am the author of The 11:11 Phenomenon. I am not trying to sell books, but explain a phenomenon. I have created this page for more people to add to it. I simply added what I know.
There is no advertising here.

So from what I understand (and I've seen the website now), you're basically trying to drive traffic to your site. In order for your site to be the subject of a Wikipedia article it must be (and I'm quoting from one of Wikipedia's central guidelines, found here) the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject. Basically, has anyone written a book or (at the very least) a magazine or newspaper article about your website? If not, then I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for it. A Train^{take the} 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am not trying to drive traffic to my site at all. would it be better if that were removed?

fact is, 11:11 should not be in wikipedia at all.

and this crime you accuse me of...my site makes no money and has no opinion. it is just a reference for all things 11:11, written by 1000s of different 11ers. Thanks for the accusation though.

Vandalism and obstruction[edit]

Sticking a nomination for speedy delete on an article that has survived AFD is not appropriate. You have been told this before. Your actions might be viewed by some editors as counter productive rather than a genuine attempt to contribute in a positive manner to Wikipedia. This is called vandalism. I urge you to calm down, take a deep breath, and begin reading the links that more than a few editors have supplied.TheRingess (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a debate recently about whether or not 11:11 should be in Wikipedia, and ultimately resulted in an acceptance of the article. You can see a record of that discussion here. As for the various links to your website, those are not appropriate, and I hope that you understand why. It would be great if you would remove them, otherwise another editor will do it. I suggest, however that you stop being dispruptive, or I'm going to block you for a mandatory version of the cool-down that TheRingess suggests above. A Train^{take the} 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i give up. you should know that theringess has alterior motives, but whatever. 11:11 should not be in wikipedia at all. it can't be defined beyond a phenomenon. i now see how this works. no wonder people laugh when you quote wiki! :)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Good luck to you. A Train^{take the} 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're not sorry at all. no need for lies :)

what kills me about you rule nazis, is that in defending wikipedia you go against what it should stand for. 11:11 can't be defined and there are plenty who would contest the one that you allow to remain, complete with advertising (solara makes money selling make-believe), but i guess they weren't there for the 'discussion'. lamest thing i have ever heard.

you can't define 11:11 and you ruin it when you try. right, geoff? ;)

btw...ringie...you will note that the internet is often a mirror. you accuse me of vandalism and obstruction on wikipedia, while you do the exact same thing to 11:11. you should be so proud. how's george's book selling? solara making money again? i see she is going on a trip...i am sure she appreciates your help :)

Stop goading TheRingess on her talk page. I haven't the foggiest notion who the people are that you're talking about, but it's got nothing to do with Wikipedia. Please start contributing constructively. A Train^{take the} 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am not goading that person at all. in fact, the reverse is true and they are sitting at home, smug in their blanket of rules, which you help pull up over their head. i don't have time for this, but theringess is the actual advertiser. you seem kind enough, atrain, but you are actually helping the wrong person, even if your rules tell you otherwise.

but then...that's the way the world works.

I have no idea what your message on my talk page meant. You seem to be having some sort of argument with someone outside of Wikipedia. I have no role in that argument, therefore have no idea what it is about, so please do not continue it on my talk page.TheRingess (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11:11[edit]

I have no idea what's going on with the page. It's a mess right now. I do know that with one of your edits, you removed all of the categories and the stub. Once I realized that you had explained your edits on the talk page for the article, I reverted myself to add the stuff at the bottom back in. I'll leave it alone if you want to remove something again, but leave that stuff alone.

On a side note, could you start signing your talk page edits... --Onorem 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC) well i have started to sign them. i'm not a wiki expert, which is obvious. i see no problem with the headers, but the information found in them have nothing to do with 11:11/numerology. as i stated- two of them are dates and the other is pov... --Jesuslawyer 20:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jesuslawyer[reply]