User talk:DeknMike/Archive 1

This is the old info for my talk page. It was created before the break.--DeknMike (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeknMike, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Tayquan ^holla _{My work} 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gravina Island Bridge. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Duuude007 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hampton Jazz Festival

The article Hampton Jazz Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing that indicates notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This festival seems plenty notable to me; thanks for starting the article. I've removed the proposed deletion notice. Please expand it beyond a stub using reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among the list of ||Jazz Festivals in the United states|| are a number whose stub is barely 5 lines. In that WikiPedia counts internet sources with more authority than other forms of documentation, some entries will be stronger than others. It does not make them less viable.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Jazz.

Messianic Judaism

That was a direct quote from the book. Please read the sources. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC) (Note that it was a source by a Jewish rabbi)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Messianic Judaism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Donald Duck (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fingers get ahead of my mind occasionally, and I hit the return key on the typewriter (oops, it's now called an "enter" key). By the time I go back in and make the correction, the bot has already called me out. Will try to be like you and never make mistakes. :-p DeknMike

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been trying to sign but the system wouldn't always take it. The signature bot helps, but doesn't always put the signature where the cursor is. I'm getting better, but rarely fail to sign.--DeknMike (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi; you may be unaware, but wikipedia may never be used as a source for wikipedia; it is highly unverifiable/reliable. Anyone can edit, you know :) . Therefore, saying that the wiki page has more than 300 entries really cannot be used as a source for the MJ article, b/c wiki is unreliable. If you can find a reliable source great, otherwise, may I trouble you to self-revert to maintain policy? If someone else reverts you, it looks more and more like an edit war. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote placement

Hi. I think we mean the same thing, but the way you placed the footnote, it looks like just the last point is supported. Placing it after the colon preceding the blockquote shows that the entire blockquote section comes from that source. If we had a line after the last point and an m-dash setting off the source, that may show the same thing, but that is usually used in poetry or full quotes, and not synopses, which this is. -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see Talk:Messianic Judaism#Footnote placement. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations

A tag has been placed on List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hang on tags are only to contest speedies. The article is now at the normal AfD, where consensus will hopefully be reached about its appropriateness at this point. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

although it wasn't "speedy" the article was vandalized and removed over the weekend. So much for honest debate on Wikipedia!--DeknMike (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DeknMike. You have new messages at Talk:Messianic Judaism.
Message added 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MJs

I am full well aware that the MJs are different in substantial ways from most other Christian groups. In all honesty, most other Christian groups would say that they are substantially different from most Christian groups other than themselves too. Particularly regarding religious material, at wikipedia we are supposed to try to ensure that the content reflects the basic mainstream scholarly opinion. I think that the Christian, and maybe Jewish, editors are among the most likely to be interested in the content, and that they are thus probably the ones who would be most likely to be able to maintain and improve it. Unfortunately, yes, there is good reason to think that some editors can and will use articles as soapboxes for their own beliefs. But, the more editors we have, the more likely it is that any such attempts will be noticed and hopefully counteracted.

It would be wonderful if we had neutral knowledgable editors about every topic willing to develop all of our material in a quick manner. Unfortunately, I think you know that we don't. I wish there were more MJ editors around right now willing to wok on the content, but, without that input, we basically do have to try to develop content with what we have. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't you that added the POV-pushing things such as so called and Jacob (also called James), then I apologize. But it sure looked like your edits. ;) A Sniper (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'so called' wasn't mine. Jacob/James is from Stern. Neither was me pushing a POV.--DeknMike (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. A Sniper (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was attacked on the article page, made my case on the discussion page, and attacked there by those with POV, the ones who continually edit disruptively. So it goes.--DeknMike (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

Jayjg does have a point here, whether we really like to admit it or not. WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR pretty much explicitly say we can only repeat what is said by the sources. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding what the sources say, except in those comparatively few cases (like, perhaps, in book reviews) where another source has said that the first source very strongly intimates a conclusion, whether they expressly say it or not. So, basically, we can't even really say "grass is green" unless we have a source to verify it. And we shouldn't be able to anyway: sometimes grass is yellow or brown. And, unfortunately, primary sources, as per WP:PSTS, are also something we strive to avoid, particularly if those primary sources say something which is not said by any secondary or tertiary sources.

On the MJ talk page, you are making a statement which seems to confuse and conflate religious Judaism and cultural Judaism. The debate over the equating of those two has been going on for as long as I've been here, and the conclusion always seems to be that the two cannot be equated. Whether that conclusion is itself driven by POV pushing, I really can't say. I know that there have been at least two debates over whether the entity which calls itself the Catholic Church, and which includes in its numbers roughly half of all Christians, had actually been argued before, with the completely illogical conclusion that the CC page would have to be given to something other than the 50% of Christianity which use that term as their default name.

Regarding the MJ page and their status as Jews, if you want to contest that point, I would think either going to the NPOV noticeboard or filing an RfC on the subject, with sources indicated, might be effective. I myself am not sure whether the contention that a RS isn't reliable if it is based on one of the sides, because it is very difficult to prove beyond a doubt that a source is explicitly repeating any particular source. But, otherwise, I do think that saying the MJs are Jews won't fly, because of the ambiguity of the term "Jew". Now, if one wanted to say that the MJs were "cultural Jews", that might fly, because of the additional modifier. Otherwise, like in the first debate about the Catholic Church, once in a while the system breaks down and the wrong choice is made. If that is the case here, and I don't know if it is, then generally the best thing to do is to accept it, at least for a while (say maybe a year?), and during that time check to see if any independent RS's take the position you want. If they do, then the argument against the statement gets substantially weakened.

Anyway, just rambling to let you know about some of the previous history, and how, yeah, once in a while, clear mistakes are made. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gutenburg pause

The article Gutenburg pause has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can't find anything on google (scholar) about this theory, seems wp:MADEUP. Also, article title contains a typo, its Gutenberg

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Business Rainmaking

The article Business Rainmaking has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Spam for a book

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had written the reference like a press release instead of an encyclopedia article. Fixed the reference and added two more. Kudpung inappropriately pushed for deletion instead of fixing the article. --DeknMike (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That someone was was the creator. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Business_Rainmaking&diff=prev&oldid=395003676. As it was presented, the article read clearly like a promotion for a book, and therefore needs no further research. The PROD is to give editors to make impprovements - which appeers to have been done.--Kudpung (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style, citations, and spam.

I've left a message for you on my tp, but I do suggest you read up on this too, and also read up on our rules about sharing accounts.--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sharing. Just me. He thought the 'n' meant 'and'.

--DeknMike (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent issues

DeknMike, by my count you've reverted the Messianic Judaism article 10 times in the past 4 days. In addition, you've regularly invented claims not supported by sources, and either ignored concerns raised at the article's Talk: page, or made incomprehensible statements that reflect neither the sources nor reality. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, which states in its lead:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR rule says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

If you continue edit-warring, it is likely that you will end up being blocked - and please note that you can be blocked even if you don't technically violate the 3RR rule. Since we'd all like to avoid this, I encourage you to engage with other editors in a meaningful way on the article's Talk: page, rather than constantly reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeknMike - that's a lot of edit warring and tendentious editing. Please stop. This is not constructive. -- Y not? 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that many edits of this type are definitely less than constructive. One idea comes to mind, by the way. I am certain that the 19th century Hebrew Christianity movement is notable enough for a separate article, given the Schoenfield book and other references to the movement. There is every reason to believe that an article on that movement could be easily created. That article could also say toward the end that current Messianic Jews have stated that they believe themselves, based on what sources they have, to be a direct continuation of that earlier movement, with a similar statement in the main MJ article. Some sort of action of that sort might help resolve the controversy about the context in which to place that earlier movement. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Outreach Judaism for deletion

The article Outreach Judaism is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outreach Judaism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Usb10 ^Connected? 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Hello. I noticed that you referenced having put back a direct quote into the Messianic Judaism article. The problem is that it isn't a direct quote - you're actually attributing 'missions to Jews' to 'Messianic Judaism' when in fact they are not the same thing. I have kept the reference but have altered the text accordingly. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tovia Singer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DeknMike. You have new messages at Messianic Judaism's talk page.
Message added 21:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.

Messianic Judaism thoughts

I realize you may think that this is in some way "talking down" to you, and want to apologize up front if that impression is conveyed. Please think of it as an old hand offering some opinions he has developed over time.

However, one of the main points of contention here seems to be the use of what are, basically, self-published sources (either by the MJ movement or its adherents) versus independent sources. This is a problem which afflicts several other articles as well, FWIW.

One of the primary reasons for inclusion of such self-published material is almost always that those who are in some way sympathetic to the subject want to include material which is widely accepted by the subject movement, but perhaps not by the academic community in general, whether that community has clearly relevant opinions or not. However, like it or not, we really are supposed to base our content primarily on the presumably neutral independent sources, rather than the more clearly sympathetic sources. In my own experience, based on content regarding the Ebionites, Falun Gong, Scientology, and a few other groups, I've always tended to see that, in discussion elsewhere on the web and elsewhere, content which clearly seems to support a sympathetic opinion tends to cause the article to be, ultimately, regarded as less reliable, and by extension damages the reputation of both wikipedia as a whole as well as of those editors who support those opinions here. I don't think anyone really wants to make it easier to ignore our content, but that is one of the outcomes of inclusion of such material.

Also, I am going to say something here that I acknowledge is honestly unsupportable in this instance. However, I think that, in general, those editors who support the inclusion of such sympathetic material tend to do so at least in part for purposes of either internal or external "evangelization". If that even remotely true in your case, I would only point out that while such efforts might be successful to a degree in the short run, they tend to have the negative effect in the long run. I think almost all of the MJs are probably at best first- or second- generation adherents. Their commitment to the movement is probably, on that basis, rather weak. One of the things which I have read repeatedly is that people who find that the idea they accepted was accepted by them on the basis of possibly misrepresented material will be the fastest and most committed opponents of that belief later. As an example, for some years there was a self-published periodical for those who have left the Christian conventions religious group. I myself, who have read up a lot on newer religious groups, was barely aware of the group's existence. Finding out that there was a short-term periodical for those who have left the group is to my eyes truly extraordinary. Although I can't say it is true in that particular case, yes, often this is prompted by individuals finding they were, in a way, "lied to."

None of us can know whether beliefs or opinions held by a group will ever be accepted outside of that group later. On that basis, I myself believe that the best way to go would be to use only the independent reliable sources for the bulk of the material, and maybe include material based on self-published material in a less prominent way, although there is always the option of including external links to relevant pages of the group which includes its opinions.

Also, for what it's worth, I have found a whole slew of articles (several hundred, in fact) directly relating to the MJs on the Gale Cengage General One File, Proquest, News Bank, and JSTOR data banks. I think almost all of those sources are, basically, independent. I would be more than willing to forward them to you, if you were to send me an e-mail with your address.

Sorry again if this seems in any way to be insulting or denegrating to you. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 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 User:Seb az86556, 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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hebrew Christian. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeknMike. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just want to follow up on the edit warring comment above. You are currently at 3 reversions in the past 24 hours. If you revert another editor again within this time, you will have broken WP:3RR, and, as such, will likely be temporarily be blocked from editing. I want to clarify something that may be confusing, though--it doesn't even matter if you're right, you still can't go past 3RR. Furthermore, you can't edit war in general, even if you technically stay under 3RR. The correct thing to do is to discuss this with other editors on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Hebrew Christian. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 07:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note on Courcelle's talk page to the effect that I believe you (DeknMike) didn't cross 3RR, although the counting is very close. There is no question that you were edit warring (defined generally as reverting aggressively without discussing), but that's a little more vague than 3RR. Whether or not Courcelles considers that, when you do come back to editing, please come back to the article's talk page. I added a note there, and I'm watching the page as well; I'm a bit concerned about the way the decision to redirect the article happened, and would like to see a discussion held on Talk:Hebrew Christians for clarity. It is a problem that you were notified of the discussion and didn't take part in it, but I don't think that they held the discussion in the right place. In any event, now is the time to relax, and for everyone to engage in a productive discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring. However, I somewhat misread the logs, your first revert was on 20 February, so you get a reprieve. If you revert again within the next 24 hours, the block will be reinstated. Courcelles 08:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeknMike, your creation of this POVFORK has been reverted by 3 different editors, after the clear consensus favoring this. I've opened a discussion on the issue at Talk:Jewish_Christians#POVFORK of this article being created. Rather than continuing to revert, please express your views there. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on keeping or redirecting or renaming the article has been opened at Talk:Jewish Christians

User:Jayjg has opened a discussion on Talk:Jewish Christians about whether or not Hebrew Christian should be a separate article, or be redirected to Jewish Christian. Another author has suggested perhaps that what is needed is a rename, to distinguish the 19th century Hebrew Christian movement that you seem to be writing about from the more general equivalency between Hebrew and Jewish Christian. Please go there to discuss it. Note that Jayjg notified you (indirectly) of this by starting opening a new section on Talk:Hebrew Christian stating that a discussion was taking place at the other article. Since the article was notified, and ~~you are now being notified here~~ Jayjg also notified you above, you must now participate in that discussion rather than edit warring now or in the future. You may not use the defense of "They're talking about it at the wrong page," because you are fully informed of where the discussion is being held, and there is some logic to it being held there. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, Wikipedia does not require the following of formal procedural rules about where to hold discussions; so long as relevant parties are notified, holding it in a similar but slightly different place is acceptable. Again, I hope you will join in this discussion so that we can better understand why you believe this should be a distinct article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see the note from Jayjg above this. I've corrected my sentence above. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately it's still a holiday weekend and I'm still looking at the site. I will go silent again in a couple of hours. --DeknMike (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you mentioned you would be away from editing for a few days, and because we had consensus and your agreement at the discussion at Jewish_Christians#POVFORK_of_this_article_being_created, I went ahead and completed the move of the content of 'Hebrew Christian' to Hebrew Christian Movement. Zad68 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions

I'm not sure how much experience with the encyclopedia you have, so if I seem to denigrate your history my apologies.

First, you will find that virtually all the main articles on any extant religious movements are in less than good shape, at least not GA or better. Religious groups are, by definition, contentious topics, and groups that are explicitly contention, like the MJs, are even more so.

One of the things I am hoping to do beginning of next month is maybe get some discussion across the religious editor community here about the religious content, specifically about what areas need improvement, and how to maybe resolve any of the longstanding issues about some of them. Whether that works or not, and whether it addresses the MJs particularly, is another matter.

In any event, I think it probably best if, as an editor who has made he is less than independent of the MJs, you maybe avoid some of the more contentious topics of the MJs for a while. My primary reason for this is not that your edits would be problematic, but because Portal:Messianic Judaism, which has existed for some time, and is potentially one of the best sources of information we have, has so few good articles available for inclusion in it. I believe that Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions gives individual listings for some MJ congregations and associations, and that the articles on less controversial subjects like those are generally easier to improve neutrally, and, thus, include in the portal. The articles on MJ theology are also, I think, important articles which don't involve much controversy. Improving articles on the associations and theology and a few others to the level of quality which might make the portal a featured portal would be, I think, possibly a lot easier than having one individual work on more contentious articles. Also, having a few better biography articles would probably be useful aa well. Anyway, just a few opinions. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing that Jayjg seems to have some continuing concerns elsewhere. A few points come to mind.

Avi, a wonderful editor who I have in the highest possible esteem for his longstanding, useful, knowledgable and neutral willingness to, as a Jew, improve some of the weaker and more contentious articles which relate to specifically Christian matters, said at some point that Jewish thinking rejects the possibility of the divisibility of God. Leaving aside the controversy over whether omnipotence or indivisibility takes priority in God, a question I do not believe has ever necessarily been definitively addressed, it would possibly be helpful if the MJs had a clear statement of beliefs which could be referenced. I know that there are several different MJ associations, and that might make a single such statement of beliefs problematic, but if it were to be possible to have whichever association(s) your congregation belongs to to make such a statement, that would be very useful. I note that 20% of Christians in the world say they have been baptized more than once, and that (so far as I know) only the Baptist/Charismatic/Pentecostal wing of Christianity endorses multiple baptism. Those groups also tend to have a low regard for issuing doctrinal statements. If those beliefs are also strong in the MJ community, that obviously might present a difficulty in issuing any sort of doctrinal statement. But if MJs do not necessarily uniformly support the Trinitarian view of the divine, and, particularly, if one or more congregations or associations specifically endorse some sort of variation on a Unitarian view of God, which should only of course happen if they do actively belief that (I want it clear I am in no way endorsing falsification of statements of belief for "political" purposes), that group or group might very easily find their acceptance by Jews grow at least a little, and that might, potentially, in some way spread to the broader community. Particularly if the differentiation of the MJs and J4Js were stressed as well.

Also, as I remember from previous discussions, SLRubinstein said something to the effect (and if he ever sees this, yes, I know that these are not your exact words - I just didn't check and am both working on my own weak memory of the words and tone of the discussion at that time - please don't get mad if you think this distorts rather than reproduces your comments) that Jews do not, well, really like the idea of Christians claiming to be Jews, considering, among other things, how many Jews have been systematically killed by Christians over the years. Others said that they think the MJ movement is pretty much just a continuation of the Jews for Jesus. As I remember, you said MJs don't like J4Js necessarily any more than Jews do. FWIW, while I do myself like having the legal concerns raised by Sekulow and others raised and addressed, and am thus grateful to the J4Js for their involvement, I myself wish that maybe the J4Js weren't so consistently and almost solely involved in those legal matters.

You, as I remember, said somewhere that you are one of the leaders of your MJ congregation. If that is still true, then I think, maybe, you might be in a position to not only improve wikipedia content on the MJs, but also, maybe, help create it as well. One of the biggest problems I see the MJs have is the Jewish identification of them with the J4Js. The only way I can see that being addressed if verifiable statements in reliable sources were made by Jews that not all the MJs they personally knew were J4J people, and that many MJs reasonably resented it. The best way to do that would be to increase the amount and frequency of contact between the two groups. I don't know where, specifically, you are based, and what the Jewish population there is like. If, however, your congregation or other congregations were to establish a stronger direct contact with their local Jewish community, possibly through mutual participation in specific charitable works, mutual participation in forums of a community or religious nature, and maybe having members of one group speak at congregations of the other, that could, depending on how effective the efforts prove, possibly markedly reduce the level of antipathy between the groups, at least in North America, and I think I remember you saying you lived there, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I know that my statements are long and often at least border on the incoherent. I am, for better or worse, often a stream-of-potentially-altered-state-conciousness writer. But, if any of this is coherent to you, I thought, maybe, it might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, one problem with Messianic Judaism is that there is no universal definition of the movement. Some simply impose Jewish forms on existing Christian theology and congregations; many of these are of the charismatic tradition (though some charismatic Messianics are legitimately Jewish or align with mainline MJ orgs). I am a gentile member of a MJ congregation's leadership team, and our rabbi (born into the Conservative Judaism tradition in New York) has in the past been affiliated with J4J, but now works with Chosen Peoples; we also affiliate with Association of Messianic Congregations (AMC). We are not part of MJAA, though some of our members used to belong to MJAA congregations. There are theological problems with the MBI, not the least of which is the assertion that joining a Messianic congregation makes one Jewish (my situation, for example); you remember the firestorm over conversion/salvation, where I argued that one could be Messianic and not Jewish, which is the doctrinal position of AMC and CPM. ** Jews for Jesus is not a Messianic organization per se, but clearly calls themselves a Christian mission to the Jews; the term J4J was originally a term of derision used in a news article, and was later adopted by Moishe Rosen to capitalize on the marketing of it. It sponsors no congregations, though its staff lean to MJ congregations, and MJ congregations often use some of their materials. ** From what I have read and learned, from conferences, training and conversations with Sam Nadler (Word of Messiah), David Sedaka (Chosen Peoples) and the board of AMC, the doctrine posted on the Messianic Judaism page is reasonably common among most mainline Messianics. Most hold to a view of G-d being manifest in three personalities, the creator/father, Jesus the son, and the comforter/holy spirit; they are one G-d, revealed as three persons for our finite minds to comprehend. ** Regarding good works, we have begun (at my suggestion) contributing to the local homeless shelter whose population often includes jewish people, and to a bomb shelter project in Israel. We continue to look for opportunities to participate with the Jewish community here, though many exhibit Jayjg's attitude that we are deceivers not to be trusted. ** Thank you for your level-headed contributions over the years. Like yourself, I strive for accuracy, but am still working to attain your level of competence.--DeknMike (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that you would have good things to say about my level of competence, based on the comments of others elsewhere. ;) Also, I acknowledge that this following statement probably could be read as trying to lead the witness, as it were.

The AMC you mention is just one of several MJ groups listed in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, and I think it is probably the articles of the groups which are the best places to put most of the relevant content on beliefs. If all these associations did clearly define their doctrines, I as an individual am virtually certain that some potential converts from nontrinitarian Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, COGIC, etc.) would probably object to the trinitarian doctrines, and, possibly on that basis, not join trinitarian congregations, but possibly start their own, which would likely lead to separate a nontrinitarian association in time. Personally, I think that it might have been such anticipation of a clearly nontrinitarian MJ group that Dan Cohn-Sherbok was anticipating when he said MJs would be accepted as Jews by the end of the century. I know that the above sounds, understandably, like trying to "stage" events, and it to a degree is, but I tend to think such developments are inevitable anyway.

And I probably phrased one point less well than I should have earlier. I acknowledge I haven't looked to see the relevant websites, but I am virtually certain that there is a webpage of either your congregation or association which can hold extensive audio and video clips. In all the areas I've ever lived in, which have all been 50,000 or more, there has been at least one local radio or television show on Sunday morning which interviewed local religious leaders and discussed local religious events. Many newspapers will still have similar sections in print or online. Such shows are part of the stations' commitment to the community as per their license application, and, even if very few people watch them, they are still shows which the stations expend some effort at. What I was aiming at saying was that it would possibly/probably be a good idea to try to get good speakers on such programs wherever possible and as frequently as possible, even in the occasional direct Jew vs. Messianic Jew discussion/argument, possibly taped at a church, synagogue, or college meeting hall, and then have the material archived somewhere where it could be used as a source for us here. Particularly if Cohn-Sherbok and other at least somewhat sympathetic "straight" Jewish rabbis could also be talked into taking part in a broader discussion, that might help even more.

More or less, at this point anyway, I think it is probably almost a wasted effort to try to convince Israeli Jews that MJs are Jews. It might however be possible to lead some American Jews that MJs are "close enough" to be counted as Jews, particularly if, in some communities, the addition of the MJs to charitable existing efforts could increase the visibility of those efforts, and possibly by extension the success of them. This would probably be where the MJ communities are largest or proportionally largest of course.

Regarding the definition of the movement, that's a problem too. I'm trying to start making a list of all the relevant religion related historical encyclopedias/dictionaries out there, and articles on them individually. When we have a clearer idea what independent and (we hope) neutral tertiary sources say, that may help in addressing the matter of definition here.

Regarding the J4Js, such abbreviations are inevitable, really, and I can't fault it considering that RCC (Roman Catholic Church), JWs (Jehovah's Witnesses), SDAs (Seventh-day Adventists), and other groups with long names use similar abbreviations, in addition to the MJs of course. I also note that one of the more prominent Catholic apologists, who at least used to regularly appear on Catholic Answers, is associated with the J4Js. It does seem, maybe, that the J4Js were among the early supporters of the MJ movement, maybe as a form of "provisional" Christianity of some kind. Maybe "playing up" that the J4Js include non-MJs as among their bigger advocates would help as well. Maybe.

The biggest problem however as I see it is that the amount of attention from independent sources the MJs get is so comparatively low that it makes independent academic review and discussion of the topic less likely or common. I think the best way to address that matter would be to increase the public profile of the MJs, particular in relation to their interactions with Jews and, where possible, their dissociation from the J4Js.

And, by the way, I as an individual have few if any real reservations about Jayjg. He was a former arbitrator, and is probably one of the better editors in general we have. Other editors are sometimes a different matter, and that holds for Jews, Catholics, Hindus, and virtually every other group out there. Unfortunately, it does seem to me that, based on the evidence, the "support" of MJ Jewishness in the independent press is much less than the opposition to same. Whether those sources actually are "independent," particularly if key personnel or owners are Jews or sympathetic, is another matter, but also harder to prove. We more or less have to assume that nominally independent sources are such per policies and guidelines and base our content upon the comparative weight ideas receive in those sources, and, yeah, that includes such dubious sources. So, in effect, maybe the best way to change the way we represent the MJs in wikipedia is by changing the amount and nature of the independent coverage of the topic, with, is possible, particular attention to the relationship of the Jews and the MJs. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, to sum up the rambling above, some sort of large-scale marketing effort would probably be useful. I think most of the major Christian denominations already have such built-in units, but am not sure if the MJs have such yet. Also, I think the idea of reaching out to assist Jews in shelters, which tend to be, based on what I remember from Star Trek and the like, operated by Christian groups, is a great idea. If the funding were available to set up a few shelters in old houses, like the St. Jude shelter I volunteered at in college, which might limit much of its preaching to the Hebrew Bible, or, maybe in conjunction with Jews and Muslims, maybe helping establish an "Abrahamic" shelter which might stress that preachers of all kinds coming in try to make their presentations relevant to all faiths, that would be very interesting to see as well. Particularly in towns with large non-Christian populations, the existing Christian-based shelters might be at least a bit of a turn-off to non-Christians, and establishing locations more to their tastes, one way or another, might be both extremely useful, and, maybe, get enough attention to merit inclusion in the articles here and become part of the broader public perception of the MJ community. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Messianic Judaism, you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and comment my "MJ history sources" page

Hi DeknMike, I'd like the editors at Messianic Judaism to work together and come to a consensus on how to characterize when the movement arose. So that we are all working from the same source material, I have collected all the relevant source quotes I could find and put them in a table here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Zad68/MJ_history_sources . Could you please review this table and make any changes or comments you see necessary? Once we can all agree on the quality and credentials of the sources, and what the sources say, then we can work together to express what the sources say accurately in the MJ article itself. I appreciate your collaboration on this! Thanks very much, --Zad68 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Washawski notes in her PhD dissertation at Hebrew University that "throughout her ethnography, Feher (1998) attempts to reveal hidden “Christian” practices according to her theologically unsupported and academically unproblematized assumptions regarding Judaism and Christianity." (Returning To Their Own Borders - A Social Anthropological Study of Contemporary Messianic Jewish Identity in Israel, p4) [1]--DeknMike (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish resistance to the Gospel

It's useful to consider the words of David N. Brickner (Jewish Resistance to the Gospel, 'the Jewish community has decided that Jews cannot believe in Jesus. Anyone who dares to contradict this decision will be labeled deceptive.' [http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/16/44 originally presented to the Evangelical Missiological Society Santa Clara CA, November 20-22, 1997. Later was published in J. Dudley Woodberry, ed. Reaching the Resistant: Barriers and Bridges for Missions (Evangelical Missiological Society Series, v. 6; Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1998, (p. 79-106)]--DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

DeknMike, you've edited the history of the Messianic Judaism section without getting consensus first. You were warned that doing this again would lead to administrative action, and have again ignored and misrepresented the sources. I strongly encourage you to revert yourself now, and discuss on the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Hi DeknMike, I have just requested mediation[2] regarding Jayjg 's behaviour and in the process of doing so, I saw, quite by chance, that you say you have experienced and therefore complained of almost the exact same treatment as I have compalined of. I thought I saw that Goswami14 had taken over responsibility for your case. I have therefore requested User:Goswami14 to look into my case as well as yours. As yet I have received no reply. I cannot see any develeopment with your mediation request and I'm new to all of this. Therefore I am asking you directly: has your case been taken up, or is it not being attended to? Has Goswami contacted you at all? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystichumwipe, you have my sympathies. Jayjg may have years of experience, but he does not seem to like people with a different world view. It's as if, if he doesn't like your sources, he will use his position to bully your submission. Mediation has rarely worked, except one case, where he was caught arguing against me on an unrelated page. Also, I saw he directed you to use discussion page before posting to the article, but his gang seems to monitor Jewish-themed pages and tend not to allow dissenting opinion. Sorry I don't have a solution. If you find one, please let me know. I've been unable to reason with him.--DeknMike (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation request was at the end of April. But I can't see where anyone wrote anything on the request page apart from one question of whether it had been resolved. Is that the only feedback you got to your mediation request? :-o Did you not get any other response from a mediator?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that to say I doubt mediation really works, if the target is an administrator.--DeknMike (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Liberty Academy Youth Orchestra

The article Liberty Academy Youth Orchestra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable local youth orchestra

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LadyofShalott 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claims etc.

a) Please don't make false claims about me, as you did in this edit summary. I had not removed that "reference", Zad68 did. b) What you describe as a "reference" is nothing of the sort. http://books.google.com/books?id=r3hCgIZB790C&lpg=PA71&ots=JwSXPMWh45&dq=%27Jacob%20Freshman%27%20%27leopold%20cohn&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=%22mission%20to%20the%20jews%22&f=false takes you to a long list of page snippets (41 in all) with the phrase "Mission to the Jews" highlighted. Zad68 was correct to remove it; please review WP:CITE to understand how to properly cite a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church Planting Movement

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Church Planting Movement-- The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand. Amy Z (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting your WP:NOR into the Messianic Judaism article

Mike, we're quite tired of these games - you've been reinserting that WP:NOR into the Messianic Judaism article for months now, despite multiple reliable sources that say the opposite of what you claim. You've been warned many times before - if you don't stop, there will be administrative action taken. Our patience is at an end. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and your buddies continue to bluster, but if you first sought to read sources other than your private book list, as I have, you might learn something.--DeknMike (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Church Planting Movement

I've had a good look for sources on this, but the only ones I can find are from the movement(s) itself, or from similar organisations/individuals. There seems to be nothing significant in the sort of third-party sources we'd need to establish notability, and we clearly can't have an article sourced solely to the movement itself. Consequently, I can see little alternative to moving for deletion. As a courtesy though, I'll leave this for a few days if you intend to actually expand third-party sourcing. Can you let me know whether you intend to do this?

Frankly, I'd have though that this topic, if it can be properly sourced, would be better off dealt with in our evangelism and proselytism articles - it tells us next-to-nothing about how (or why) it actually differs from other forms of Christian evangelism, and instead simply portrays the movement as some sort of theological pyramid scheme (which presumably it isn't). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CPM is fairly new to the USA - and not thoroughly understood, though it is an effective method in other parts of the world. It may fit within Evangelism, but is sufficiently unique to deserve an attempt at showing the distinction. (I find it odd we can have stubs on just about anything except Christianity. Even self-promoting Buddhist or Jewish sites are notable, but not new movements in Christianity.) --DeknMike (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's nonsense. I've written plenty of articles on Christian topics, some of them on minor figures and movements. That there would be some sort of anti-Christian bias on Wikipedia is a silly assertion; next thing you'll be asking for presidential birth certificates. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :)

As a friendly piece of advice I'd recommend you from now on never use the minor edit clickbox and always try and give an edit summary in any article as well as Talk page description in controverted articles. And also probably make your content additions almost verbatim from sources. To an extent it's unfair, to an extent it's not. Cheers. And cheer up ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

And a dessert.. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Trayvon#New pics

Yesterday Noon I used the following edit summary... "Why are you following me"? "I'm Neighborhood Watch. Just doin' my job' "Ok...Well. I'm stayin' right over there with my Dad" "No prob. My name's George" "Hi. I'm Trayvon".

WE both agree it's a pity it didn't happen that way. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, DeknMike, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your recent work on Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest to you at WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_of_User:DeknMike, you have been topic banned from Messianic Judaism and related pages for one year. He is allowed to participate in discussion on the talk page but may not edit the parent article or any related articles. This means you can use the talk pages to make suggestions about the direction of the article, point out sources, and request edits, but you may not edit the actual articles. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, but if you want to leave a note here, I also have your talk page on my watchlist. AniMate 03:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of topic ban

You are topic banned from editing Messianic Judaism and all related articles. This includes List of Messianic Jewish organizations. I have reverted your edits, and the next time you violate your topic ban will result in a block. AniMate 22:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think edits to Christian theology are probably okay. As for what constitutes related, I think you should avoid anything that is derivative of Messianic Judaism. Articles listed at Portal:Messianic Judaism should generally be avoided. Your topic ban was very specific about what kinds of edits were acceptable. You should not edit the articles, but you may participate in discussion on article talk pages. If you see something like an out of date reference on these articles, you can always post on the talk page and request that someone work on any problems you see. You are always free to appeal the topic ban. To do so, please read WP:UNBAN. AniMate 00:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, probably the best thing to do would be to post a message at WT:X. That page does get at least a bit of attention, and would probably get results fastest. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your MJ-related article edit

Please self-revert this edit as it's clearly in the area of your topic ban. Zad68 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Zad68 16:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANI to which you might like to contribute

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for topic ban violations. A topic ban in an area means just that: no editing in the area. Doesn't matter if it's a table format or the width of a space, you aren't permitted to edit in the area of Messianic Judaism. Any admin can unblock after the user agrees to obey the topic ban.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.[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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock: I'm sorry that I was on a cross-country flight during the duration of the discussion and was not able to respond. If I might remind you of how this started: The topic ban JayJG rails about is a difference in reading the relevant literature regarding the HISTORY of the Messianic Judaism movement – nothing else. My interpretation comes from a wide variety of sources that suggest the movement had its origins in the early 1800s, and came into its own in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His sources assert – without substantiating references – that the movement did not exist in any form prior to 1967. Of all the discussions on that page, that is the crux of the disagreement. When I refused to accept his word on it and roll over to his interpretation, I was banned from editing the whole page. Since he had previously tried to block my editing of other related articles that might – after proper community discussion - give weight to a middle position not in keeping with his dogma, he sought and succeeded in banning my editing of anything that had the word Messianic in it. Yes, I made an update to the SMBF listing on the List of MJ organizations after a new president was selected in June, because that information was not widely publicized, and Wikipedia should strive to be accurate, and on another occasion forgot and added an updated reference to tangential page (I have asked for another editor to take action on the talk page - per the ban - but no one is willing to do it or even reply to the talk post.) The latest was not a 'breaching experiment,' but simply added two lines to help a column line up, fixing an error other editors had previously ignored. Such a minor infraction! I have kept away from all discussions regarding doctrine or history, instead taking what little time I now spend on Wikipedia on improving discussions about the historic region of Southeast Virginia, on SEC Regulation D, etc. This indefinite block on all edits is over the top vindictive in that while I vehemently disagreed with the results of the ban, I have honored the spirit, and (except when I forget in those 3 trivial edits) even the letter of the ban for the main topic at hand. Request the block be removed, and the editors involved get back to improving Wikipedia. DeknMike (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A topic ban is a topic ban, period. The contents of said ban can occasionally be amended at WP:ANI, but otherwise they are valid whether you agree or not. A minor format change to an article that is part of your topic ban is as flagrant as it gets. As there is merely justification above, and no admission that your edits were indeed improper nor that they will be repeated, an unblock cannot be entertained. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 13 November 2012 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I apologize to the community and will abide by the terms of the ban until lifted. DeknMike (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Great, welcome back! Max Semenik (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unblock how to

Per the discussion at ANI, it is recommended you post another unblock request consisting solely of the statement ""I agree to abide by my topic ban" Of course, after unblocking it's essential that you follow it to the letter, and make no edits to the pages cover under the ban, no matter how trivial. NE Ent 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to STEM fields 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) 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of collegiate a cappella groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savoir Faire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Alternative cancer treatments

Your recent editing history at Alternative cancer treatments shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Edit warring is not allowed here, and you can be blocked even if you don't violate the three-revert rule. You haven't gotten to 3rr, but that's not the point. You have violated a clearly warned WP:BRD situation (it was in my edit summary, in the edit history). Read about BRD and follow it. It is not spelled BRBD or BRRRD. Even though it's a guideline, it is used to determine who has started an edit war, and violating it often results in blocks. I'm going to restore the consensus version and give you ONE more chance. Do not restore your change until (1) you have started a discussion on the talk page, (2) gotten some replies, and (3) reached a consensus on whether your proposed changes (which are controversial) are an improvement. That may take a couple days, but be patient. That content has been edit warred over before, so you are stepping into a minefield from which you may not survive. I would advise a cautious and collaborative approach. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone beat me to it. They left a message in the edit summary. If you still think your version is better, then start that discussion, or accept the wisdom of more experienced editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I notice that my edit summary mentioning BRD was on the Alternative medicine article. My bad. Well, it still applies, even if it isn't mentioned. You have been here long enough to know that. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left the issue alone because BullRangifer kept reverting my changes that didn't agree with his POV, and decided to bully his point by accusing me of edit warring. Moral: don't bother the gods with new truth.

People Express Airlines

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Talk:People Express Airlines (2012-)#Requested move regarding an issue of the base title between the old and new People Express Airlines. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Epigenetics page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DeknMike. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: "more neutral" ????

Why this change? NPOV does not refer to neutral "content". Content does not have to be neutral. It must faithfully reflect what RS say, including all the non-neutral RS. NPOV refers primarily to "editors" and their behavior. They are the ones who must remain neutral by not changing what RS say, neither through omission, censorship, neutralizing, or neutering. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DeknMike. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dayton, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kitty Hawk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say a statement is false, using "false" isn't bias, this is similar to the issue above

Please avoid edits such as one you made to Alternative facts. I also note that the statement "Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" to describe demonstrable falsehoods" was accurate and does not show bias. You should not have removed the key bit "to describe demonstrable falsehoods". Doug Weller talk 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

===A source claimed the statement was true. The media says all kinds of questionable things these days.DeknMike (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DeknMike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DeknMike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]