Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Because there is 8 hours without reverts, I am not going to block you. But if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately. ]] 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Because there is 8 hours without reverts, I am not going to block you. But if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately. ]] 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:What is the purpose of tags if they are not allowed to be used? Have a read of the wording on the tag and you will see that it is quite appropriate that the tag is placed there, based on the neglected viewpoints that I mentioned. By the way, I am not the only one edit warring,because as much as I have added the tag, others have removed it. How about we spend more of our correspondence on how to fix the article so that we can legitimately remove the tag. Yes, I know this article raises some passionate debate by those who want to support a particular point of view, of which some the points I raise tends to contradict, but if we have to suppress some of these facts because of a particular point of view, that makes this article unbalanced. If an article is unbalanced, it needs an unbalanced tag to alert readers to the fact that they may be only get part of the story. ] (]) 08:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:What is the purpose of tags if they are not allowed to be used? Have a read of the wording on the tag and you will see that it is quite appropriate that the tag is placed there, based on the neglected viewpoints that I mentioned. By the way, I am not the only one edit warring,because as much as I have added the tag, others have removed it. How about we spend more of our correspondence on how to fix the article so that we can legitimately remove the tag. Yes, I know this article raises some passionate debate by those who want to support a particular point of view, of which some the points I raise tends to contradict, but if we have to suppress some of these facts because of a particular point of view, that makes this article unbalanced. If an article is unbalanced, it needs an unbalanced tag to alert readers to the fact that they may be only get part of the story. ] (]) 08:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
== Your latest reversions have been reported again ==
. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:45, 17 January 2013
Welcome
Hello, 0oToddo0, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Christian Conventions have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
Many of these facts are currently being discussed on the articles talk page, and I invite you to join in that discussion. With proper citations, your information may be valuable to other readers. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Thanks for the welcome and the helpful info. I will try to learn all the tricks of editing as I go, but feel free to pull me up if I am doing something wrong.
Regarding the part that I added... your reason for deleting was that there was no citations, yet the section itself barely has citations and has a lot of misleading information. Are you a bit biased towards proving that William Irvine is "founder" that you would not question one uncited statement yet remove something else that disproves that because "it wasn't cited?" Just looking at previous discussion gives me the impression that you would like to keep William Irvine as the founder regardless that the facts prove otherwise. Maybe I am wrong, and you do actually believe that William Irvine was the founder. 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Question re John Long info
Hi 0oToddo0, welcome to Misplaced Pages.
May I ask where did you get the information about John Long (which has now, by the way, been reverted from the article since there was no citation or reference to back it up)?
I once tried to publish JPEG scans of John Long's diary (sourced from a researcher who received the diary from Long's grandson/son, I forget) on wikisource.org but it was considered an unpublished work so could not be copied there. Also as a self-published work it wouldn't be a valid source for the Christian Conventions article on Misplaced Pages.
I don't know why the info I put there about John Long got removed seeing it was in a section that is largely uncited, and very misleading. I will put it back in the article and ask for some discussion on it so that I know what parts I actually need to cite. It will be hard to discuss if nobody can see it to discuss it though. 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, being new to editing Wiki, I will also need to work out how to cite info. I'm guessing I will find a help page,so I should be citing very soon. 0oToddo0 (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Changes to Christian Conventions
You are changing items in that article that include references. If someone says "XXXX", it means that the reference supports "XXXX". If you change "XXXX" to "YYYY", it would be a courtesy to remove the reference as well, since the reference says XXXX, not YYYY.
Further, if mean to say YYYY, Misplaced Pages policy requires that the information appear in some reliable source that you cite. You are not doing these things.
May I suggest that you consider moving slightly slower in the your editing, and discussing some of your intended changes? That's what the talk page is for. Otherwise your changes may appear unfounded, and may be reverted. By me, for example.
Finally: I see you restored the first section that I removed. You asked to understand what citations are required, so I added tags to help. I truly don't understand the relevance of all that information however. Could you help me understand why you feel it adds value? --Nemonoman (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have only been changing items that aren't cited or the detail that is not contained in the cited documents. For example, I would have no problem editing the second sentence in the "founding" section because there doesn't appear to be any related citation.
There are plenty of other statements without citation (like the example I just used) and you don't seem to have bothered about them. Why expect me to if you don't expect it of others? I get the impression from your discussions on the article talk page that you hold onto William Irvine being the founder, and are not exactly a neutral editor in this, because you are happy to accept and info that hints at William Irvine being the founder, but make it difficult (and remove edits in my case) for anybody that might write in a way that proves that William wasn't the founder. Have you had some sort of involvement with this fellowship?
I have only been making small changes, but feel free to discuss anything that I have changed.
Yes, I restored the section that you removed because you suggested some discussion about it. It is hard to create discussion if nobody can see it. Not sure why you don't understand the relevance of all that information, because this is an encyclopedia article and those are facts of history which is specific to the section. I presented the information that way because it contradicts items that were already in that section and therefore it was hard to integrate it, without deleting much of the existing article. I do intend to make the integration once we discuss it and establish what really happened at the founding. Unfortunately, if you want to be honest about what happened, you are going to have to let go of your apparent belief that William Irvine is the founder. Anyway, we can probably discuss this further on the article's talk page so that others join the discussion. 0oToddo0 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article talk page is a better venue, and look forward to you entering into many ongoing discussions there. Not least of which is reliability of sources that are the basis of the Irvine as Founder claim, the user of the word "founder" ,etc., etc., etc.
I understand that people influence others (Long and Irvine) and are Influenced by others (Irvine and Long) but I don't see how the information you have added does much more than say that these two contemporaries were involved with the formation of the church, which fact is cited in the article.
As to founding the church, the first 10 references (citing the word "Founder" in the infobox) relate to this. Those references are not then simply duplicated later.
Also on the website tellingthetruth.info website you are using as a reference, see this item saying
William Irvine Founder of the Church...
I might be forgiven for my apparent belief that Irvine is the founder. Actually I don't believe or disbelieve this one way or the other. I just have noticed that a lot of respectable sources say so, in cluding one you quote. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
enter this discussion.
You said it above, that "these two contemporaries were involved with the formation of the church", plus there were many others and it really makes me wonder why you would only (seemingly randomly) pick one of those to list as the founder, when there were many more involved, and in fact John Long did much more than William Irvine did, even though he may not have been as influential on the preaching side of things.
As far as the TTT site goes and that they call William Irvine the founder, I have had discussions with the author of that book, and many others who claim that William Irvine was the founder and no one can tell me why it is that he is the founder and what he did to found it. So, feel free to blindly accept the cover of their book if you like, or you may want to look at the truth. All I have done is display facts that can be verified, even if they do come from a book that has William Irvine as founder on the cover. I used that book to show to you that people are trying to obscure the truth and the "founding" section is completely misleading for that same reason.
As I mentioned to you, I will try to integrate the details that I added into the “founding” paragraph, but unfortunately, to do that we are going to have to drop all the incorrect information that attempts to paint William Irvine as the founder.
Please be advised that one of wikipedia's policies is that material is that material cannot be added by one party to the same article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You have performed three such revisions in the past 10 hours. Your sourcing, as I have indicated, is nowhere near acceptable by wikipedia standards, and, on that basis, I have removed it as is more or less required by policy. Please do not attempt to restore the content again, as doing so will likely result in your being made subject to a block. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This block was placed because of your insistence, in violation of policy, to have the disputed material contained in the article. I cannot myself remove the material until later, or otherwise I would run the risk of being similarly blocked myself. At that time, I will remove it and add it to the article's talk page. It can be discussed there just as easily. Should you continue to readd the material to the article itself thereafter, there is a very serious chance that you may be blocked for even longer periods and that the article itself will be protected from any editing. I would thus encourage you to refrain from readding the material until and unless there is consensus that it is sufficiently well-sourced to be included in the article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
January 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Christian Conventions. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. I believe that your continued use of the dispute tag without a simple list of what you believe is wrong and how you think it should be fixed has become disruptive. Unless you accompany your dispute tag with some sort of supporting documentation on the talk page, I regard it as vandalism. Nemonoman (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
3 Revert Rule Violation on Christian Conventions.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
I am dead serious about this, my friend. I'm putting the warning here this time. Someone else may wish to follow through with a report this time; I would not blame them. If you continue these disruptions, however, I will follow through with no hestitation. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not made any changes to the content of the article. My reverts are only been to put a dispute tag in place because there is a genuine dispute in place. I have done everything asked by other editor in relation to this dispute, but such as Nemonoman have done everything they can to try to prevent discussion, even to the point of being rude and pretending that I have not discussed anything relative to the article. This is not the case, and I am describing real cited facts which are very relative to the content of the article. Unfortunately other editor do not want to discuss this information but continually do things to prevent civil discusson and debate. Please look at the various comments and make a rational judgement on who is being unconstructive in this dispute.
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.
Please, please use new sections in Christian Conventions discussion
Todd I know we have had differences, and I want to stress that this is a personal request I'm making to help reduce the potential for continued miscommunication. If we're going to have differences, let's at least communicate about them well!
As your thoughts about a discussion topic change, or you want to introduce new items to the mix, please start new topics.
If a new section gets started by someone else (me), and relevant information from another discussion bears repeating, please COPY the relevant passage to the new discussion. Moving a new discussion into an existing discussion defeats the whole purpose of creating new sections...and the purpose is: to make communication easier.
Glad that you and I have calmed things down for the moment, and I hope we can make improvements without creating an edit war again. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nemonoman, I really can't see how you are improving communication by spliting a discussion in half by spreading it over two sections. Can you explain this please? Also see my response on the CC article discussion page. 0oToddo0 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The idea here is: as you develop new items to discuss, you create a new discussion section.
For example: your comment that you want someone to show you the actual source being cited As you might have read, I don’t have access to the sources cited in the article so I have asked what they actually say, and whether they give a specific time of the Matt 10 revelation. is new stuff. This new aspect is not specifically about whether Irvine is the founder, it's about your ability to access. That new aspect can be approached separately to good effect. Please don't think I'm splitting hairs or trying to annoy you.
Here's what I mean. In a new section, you would (1) draw attention to the newness of your request. You will get more relevant answers. The response on seeing new additions will not be "Oh no not Irvine not the founder again", but "Oh, 00todd00 wants some help". JohnCarter, for example, seems to follow the discussion on his watchlist, and only pops in when new discussion items are started.
Next: (2) this is a good example because it's pretty easy to fix the situation. Somebody pastes the relevant quotes. After a few weeks, You say thanks. Maybe you start a new section when you read them: "Problems with Citations" Or whatever. But this discussion -- "I need the sources" -- is archived. Asked and answered. Case closed. Now we can focus on "Problems with Citations".
Finally: If your request is answered, it's answered in a labelled area. When archived, it's easily searched. It's memorable: Didn't somebody ask for the sources? So it's easier to recall in later discussions. The request and its answer are not simply ladled into a bubbling stew of a discussion that's already 4 times as long as the article.
This request is not meant in anyway to frustrate you or cause you difficulty. The approach I'm outlining here is the one I use. It's is why I make new discussion items when topics change even slightly, and why I would very much prefer you not to cut and paste MY new items into older discussions as you recently did. I create new discussions for a reason. I can understand that you may like the way YOU are adding your points, but please do me the favor of allowing me that same freedom.
I promise you that using the approach I outline above will get you more results quicker and with less hassle than your current approach, and I suggest you test it for a few days. If I'm wrong, you haven't lost much, and you have earned "I tole you so" rights. If I'm right, you'll be a happier camper, even though it was me doing the suggesting. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If there comes a point when I thnk it warrants a new section to highlight my needs to others such as John Carter, then I may well start a new section called "I need the sources", and I thank you for that advice. Because I really only asked what was was documented in the sources regarding a specific date, a date which was the very subject of the discussion at the time, it was very appropriate that I ask in that section where I was in discussion with Astynax (and yourself) who suggested that they knew what was written in the sources. It seemed straight forward at the time, but there seems to be some delay in quoting these sources (which I should have expected). Anyway, I look forward to your or Astynax's responce on the "Irvine not the founder" section, or any other section that we make if there is a separate issue to discuss. 0oToddo0 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please cease replacing the unbalanced tag at the article "Two by Twos". Two editors have reverted you more than once, and I don't think either of us want to go to firmer measures. Edit warring isn't a good idea. Please discuss on the talk page further. Thank you. Winkelvi (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
→== Reporting renewed edit warring on Two by Twos ==
You have decided to engage again in behavior for which you have previously been reprimanded. This backdoor effort to insert your personal synthesis and deface the article using tags is being reported to WP:AN/EW. 5 instances again in less than 24 hours. • Astynax23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Because there is 8 hours without reverts, I am not going to block you. But if you re-add that tag again, in opposition to the apparent consensus, I will block you for edit warring immediately. Viridae08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the purpose of tags if they are not allowed to be used? Have a read of the wording on the tag and you will see that it is quite appropriate that the tag is placed there, based on the neglected viewpoints that I mentioned. By the way, I am not the only one edit warring,because as much as I have added the tag, others have removed it. How about we spend more of our correspondence on how to fix the article so that we can legitimately remove the tag. Yes, I know this article raises some passionate debate by those who want to support a particular point of view, of which some the points I raise tends to contradict, but if we have to suppress some of these facts because of a particular point of view, that makes this article unbalanced. If an article is unbalanced, it needs an unbalanced tag to alert readers to the fact that they may be only get part of the story. 0oToddo0 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Christian Conventions. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. I believe that your continued use of the dispute tag without a simple list of what you believe is wrong and how you think it should be fixed has become disruptive. Unless you accompany your dispute tag with some sort of supporting documentation on the talk page, I regard it as vandalism. Nemonoman (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
