User talk:StAnselm/2014b
 | This is an archive of past discussions with StAnselm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| 2014b |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - ... (up to 100) |
Response to message
Sorry about that. Thanks for cleaning it up. I knew this, but I had completely forgotten about it. I was more focused on fixing the content as the information was very outdated. This was changed years ago. Jadzia626 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ananias of Damascus
I know we argued about this before, but I would like your support about this. You say you couldn't find any sources from online books. I have been taking my time searching for information in Google Books, and I found information starting early today. I have already implemented some information in the article: Ananias of Damascus. I've already created the new section Biblical status. I need your help by summarizing the long links I referenced as you can see below in the article that the links drag off. -- ♣Jerm♣729 00:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Mocking of Jesus
 | On 18 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mocking of Jesus, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the New Testament narratives of the mocking of Jesus (pictured) are filled with irony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mocking of Jesus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for improving the Wiki on Good Friday Victuallers (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, we are up on almost 8000 hits, big time!!
Hafspajen (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- 10400! Great. Hope you don't mind a little adding and slight rewording here and there. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great article! Congratulations. [1] Good timing.Hafspajen (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, we are up on almost 8000 hits, big time!!
April 2014
Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you!LordFixit (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi StAnselm. Do you think St George's should be included in Template:Hobart landmarks? I can't find independent references to support this myself, but would value your opinion. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC) ps:
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!
Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
consistency and spirit
Thank you for your contributions, marked by a Christian spirit, in new articles, help and maintenance, for unitas - libertas - caritas, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Two years ago, you were the 111th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Your recent editing history at Ken Ham 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.
Multiple reverts of multiple editors without discussion on talk page MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MrBill3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jonathan Sarfati without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See the reference cited in the article: Cartwright & Theobald 2001 MrBill3 (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Sarfati. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Additional activity on the page is suggestive of meat/sock puppetry. MrBill3 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I certainly made six reverts, but they were all removing unsourced contentious material that must be removed immediately per WP:BLPREMOVE. The category in question was recently added and is completely unsourced on the article (and still is) - there were sources offered on the talk page (where the discussion is still ongoing), but none of them were explicitly supporting the category, contra to WP:BLP, which says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". I explicitly appealed to the BLP exemption - I realise this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, but this was a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:3RRNO specifically cautions that "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." With this in mind you should have at least stopped reverting once other editors questioned it on the talk page, which you did not. Even if you thought the material was a clear BLP breach, once doubt had been raised there continuing to revert instead of seeking help elsewhere was edit-warring. Olaf Davis (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Responding admin, please see relevant AN3 section here for further information.. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but if u can, plese message me to my XBOX Live Profile
^^^--66.170.199.205 (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at John Baumgardner 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. MrBill3 (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
I have blocked you again for your return to edit warring at John Baumgardner as soon as your last block expired. The duration is increased to 72 hours. It was made clear by the last blocking admin that you do not have support for edit warring categories on BLP grounds in this case. As Black Kite mentioned, WP:BLP is not a trump card for all reason and consensus-building. Additionally, you are in violation of WP:SOCK. You are free to edit while logged out, however, you are not to do so in such a way that suggests the IP edits are separate people supporting your positions. This and this are clearly your edits, for example, and they are clearly meant to create the appearance of support for your behavior. If you engage in further edit warring or sockpuppetry after this block expires, you will receive a longer block without further discussion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
StAnselm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The allegations of socking are totally false. I saw them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/101.117.3.103, but didn't bother responding to per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims. I checked the location of the IP address in question, and it is in a different state to me. So how does User:Spike Wilbury say they are "clearly" my edits? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims says "If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." It doesn't appear that User:Spike Wilbury used Checkuser - the SPI page has not been updated. I understand that it isn't perfect, and that appeals to Checkuser from blocked parties often go unheard, but in this case a different user submitted the request a week ago. In any case, I don't know what else I can do to defend myself against the allegation. (I note that Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation" while Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance says "If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding" - there seems to be a contradiction there.) Finally, as far as the editing on John Baumgardner goes, I would have thought the blocking admin would at least have taken into account what I wrote on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Protected). StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. Archived open unblock request. The block ended years ago. Huon (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Melbourne School of Theology logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Melbourne School of Theology logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:7 wonders board game cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:7 wonders board game cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bud, Not Buddy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bud, Not Buddy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Biblical coins
Category:Biblical coins, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Come back!
Signs the petition. I kid, there's not actually a petition. But I think you have been a great editor despite our differences, and if even I miss you, who else might? -- Kendrick7talk 03:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos 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.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [Seakle Greijdanus]] who had been one of his professors. He served there for over forty years.<ref>[Riemer Roukema, [http://www.riemerroukema.nl/downloads/RiemerRoukema-0144.pdf Herman Ridderbos's
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Concordia University Wisconsin logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Concordia University Wisconsin logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Christianity magazine cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Christianity magazine cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Patrick Jane.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Jane.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: semi-retirement
Retirement is NOT a policy or even a guideline and it makes no sense in or out of context, but I agree that refactoring someone else's talk page is a provocative move, though again in keeping with policy or guidelines but usually dubious Wikiquette. What do you gain from being "semi-retired"? Wikipedia is not a job, unless you are a Wikipedian in Residence somewhere, it's a hobby at best. You don't retire from volunteer work. You just help out when it makes sense to. Or you can use the retired template to mean - hey, don't contact me, I'm off-wiki probably forever due to burnout or drama. If you are actively contributing, you are being disingenuous with that template, and I've half a mind to just delete the thing altogether. Andrevan@ 07:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Moana (2018 film)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Moana (2018 film), is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 12:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus, reverting, discussion
One does not need to obtain permission to make an edit, per WP:BOLD, especially if that edit is adding valid and sourced reliable information to an article. You cannot WP:OWN an article and get away with it. If you continue reverting valid additions without making any sort of argument as to why, then other mechanisms will be pursued. Andrevan@ 09:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Correct - you do not need permission for an initial edit. But when it was reverted, you should have not added it back in. The argument as to why reference should not be included has, of course, been made several times on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Copying format
With your permission, I would like to copy your format you have on your userpage. The blue box section where you have the article's created section. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Good to see you (semi) back!
What the section title says :-) Pete from Hobart, sort of, aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Misogyny Speech
Your recent editing history at Misogyny Speech 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
aprock (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello StAnselm, I just created my first article ever on Wikipedia: Book of Elchasai, and I would like for you to expand this article as much as possible. I used this site as a reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/elchasai.html, but within the site contains many references for sourcing by scholars and church fathers. Perhaps this may give you some interest as this article is around your editing field -- Thnx & Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)