This is the old info for my talk page. It was created before the break.--DeknMike (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article Hampton Jazz Festival has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Gutenburg pause has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
The article Business Rainmaking has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
--DeknMike (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.
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)
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)
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:
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)
((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)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)
Sorry, didn't see the note from Jayjg above this. I've corrected my sentence above. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Liberty Academy Youth Orchestra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And a dessert.. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
Please self-revert this edit as it's clearly in the area of your topic ban. Zad68
16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Zad68
16:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)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)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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)
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)
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.
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)
Accept reason:
Great, welcome back! Max Semenik (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
===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)
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)
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)