|
Hi Ioan.Church! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 17:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC) |
 | Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Deletion discussion about Messianic Noahides
Hello, Ioan.Church
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Rusalkii and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Messianic Noahides, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Messianic Noahides.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rusalkii}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Rusalkii ( talk) 06:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Ioan.Church, from the discussion on the redirect delete, I have been made aware that you may have been (or may be in the future, I don't know which was meant) contacted by someone impersonating me, as a scam to get you to pay them to help with the the issue. Please be aware that if that has happened or does happen, it is a known scamming technique. Let Wiki admins know if it happens, and they can contact me and ask me whatever they want to verify whether it was me or a scammer.
- So, let's be friends, even if we disagreed about some edits. We can still work together, hopefully next time on something we can agree on. :-) Mikeatnip ( talk) 01:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Anabaptist theology. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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. Ratnahastin ( talk) 03:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You need to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Bold edits are not edit wars. Ioan.Church ( talk) 23:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Could I kindly ask that you consider toning down the responses? Users @
Ratnahastin and @
Anupam are long-time editors with continuous positive contributions, but (for example) you seem to approach them as if you know more about Wikipedia than they do. If we humbly work together, we can make Wikipedia a great place to get good information. Thanks for the consideration!
Mikeatnip (
talk) 12:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have been editing on Wikipedia longer than they have. I do know more about Wikipedia policy than they do. I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2003. I simply lost the email address associated with my first account and couldn't reset my password. I have no agenda nor ambition to push to get promoted in order to sell my services to the highest bidder (I'm not saying that either of them do that but thousands of well respected admin on Wikipedia do) and so I don't always log in when I edit. I'm not really bothered enough about the topic to keep pushing the point and am grateful for thr pushback since I have now discovered that there are thousands of 7th day Anabaptist groups in the world today. Even the Churches of God and 7th day Adventist have Anabaptist origins and still preserve mostley Anabaptist theology ly even if they have adopted Miller ism, whitism, armstronism etc.. For me, Wikipedia is a tool for increasing my knowledge and correcting minor errors here and there. But I don't get caught up in battles with cliques and cabals and with egoists. I don't participate on Wikipedia for the social aspect as there are darn too many narcissists. Take care. Ioan.Church ( talk) Ioan.Church ( talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Anabaptist theology, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also please read the guidance on citing books at
WP:CITEHOW and the guidance on citing non-English sources at
WP:NONENG and
WP:ANNOTATION.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 20:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Could you demonstrate at least one specific edit change that you are referring to please? I endeavour to ensure that every edit I make is always reliable.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 20:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not whether your edits are reliable. The issue is that you are adding content without citing a reliable source. The only recent edit you have made on this article that had a citation failed to follow most of the guidance on citing books and non-English sources. This is an issue on most if not all of your edits to this article in 2023 including these edits:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5], and
[6].
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 22:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I concede that I am lazy when it comes to following guidelines when citing books and non-English sources. But life is very busy and AI can't afford to dedicate much time to Wikipedia. Nevertheless my article contributions are always valuable. Moreover I did provide a very reliable source in the edit you posted as an example and it is an easy matter for editors with more free time to clean up my citations. Anyway a point is taken. I would appreciate protection from the
WP:SANCTIONGAME point 1 which has been played against me. All. I really want is to find true concensus for all editors not just the dictatorship of a few. For my real mistakes I apologise for causing inconvenience.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 00:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you have enough time to edit war, you have enough time to add a citation to an edit, especially an edit that's been the source of contention. And expecting someone else to finish a non-English book citation for you is not a reasonable expectation. If you want to build consensus,
start discussing if your edit is reverted rather than trying to reinstate it.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 05:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- 4 edits is not an edit war. And since you advised "start discussing" it is because I spent all my time in discussing and asking belligerent egoist to coengage in discussion that I have no time for edits. Perhaps you would have understood the situation better if you counted how many times I asked people to engage in the discussion rather than support the WP:SANCTIONGAME against me. Ioan.Church ( talk) 08:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you have enough time to edit war, you have enough time to add a citation to an edit, especially an edit that's been the source of contention. And expecting someone else to finish a non-English book citation for you is not a reasonable expectation. If you want to build consensus,
start discussing if your edit is reverted rather than trying to reinstate it.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 05:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I concede that I am lazy when it comes to following guidelines when citing books and non-English sources. But life is very busy and AI can't afford to dedicate much time to Wikipedia. Nevertheless my article contributions are always valuable. Moreover I did provide a very reliable source in the edit you posted as an example and it is an easy matter for editors with more free time to clean up my citations. Anyway a point is taken. I would appreciate protection from the
WP:SANCTIONGAME point 1 which has been played against me. All. I really want is to find true concensus for all editors not just the dictatorship of a few. For my real mistakes I apologise for causing inconvenience.
Ioan.Church (
talk) 00:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not whether your edits are reliable. The issue is that you are adding content without citing a reliable source. The only recent edit you have made on this article that had a citation failed to follow most of the guidance on citing books and non-English sources. This is an issue on most if not all of your edits to this article in 2023 including these edits:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5], and
[6].
Daniel Quinlan (
talk) 22:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
" Messianic Noahide" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Messianic Noahide has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 23 § Messianic Noahide until a consensus is reached.
Jay
💬 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 00:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)