Jump to content

User talk:TheThankful

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheThankful (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 29 May 2009 (→May 2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, TheThankful! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Ho Yeow Sun

You will find extensive discussion of the pastor-or-not issue at Talk:Ho Yeow Sun. In summary, she was described as a pastor by the church previously and this is recorded in print, but the church now claims that the title was "purely honorific". I've added a sentence that notes both, with references; you'll also note that the "personal communication" in question is quoted in full on Talk (I've added the relevant sections to the ref) and you've welcome to mail CHC to ask if they've changed their mind again... Jpatokal (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And re: Music Director, Ho Yeow Sun resigned that position in 2003, while your quote is from 2006. Jpatokal (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Yem has been music director since at least 1998/99. You do not understand the nature of a worship pastor. The role does not contradict the communications from either her or the church. A worship pastor is not an ordained pastor, but neither are they a music director --TheThankful (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 20:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

W:DNTTR. You are changing content in the lede of Europe in a way which does not reflect the main part of of the article in particular the history section. You are in an inexperienced editor who is adding unsourced statements to the lede which constitute original research. You will be reported at [[W:AN3][] if you continue. I will now add a new sourced sentence which properly reflects the sources and not your own synthesis. If you continue reverting you could be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have provided a reference. It's widely known, hardly "original research". Read up son. --TheThankful (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call other wikipedians "son". You removed the reference to Lewis & Wigen which says that "Ancient Greece is often (but by no means always) regarded as the birthplace of Western Culture" (page 226). That is not an acceptable method of editing. The lede is a summary of what is in the article. I helped rewrite the history section with User:Hemlock Martinis using multiple sources. Any way your own method of arguing on the talk page without providing proper sources is in an unacceptable way to proceed. Your hasty shotgun type of editing and bullying is equally unacceptable. Mathsci (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Son, you're the one who threatened me with blocks and the like. If there's been any bullying it's from your end. You need to do some more research if you honestly believe Western Civilization began in Greece, and no a quick Google is not "research". The Origins of Western Civilisation were up and away in the middle east well before Greeks settled into cities. Read up the reference I provided.--TheThankful (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am 52 years old, a senior research scientist in France and a bye-fellow of a Cambridge college where I was for 12 years a fellow. Please do not call me son. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You have been reported at WP:ANI for breaking the three revert rule, for bullying and for removing a sourced statement from the lede of Europe. Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

For edit warring on Europe, after being notified of the three revert rule and the ANI thread. The edit that broke 3RR. Even if you honestly believe your content changes are 100% justified -- talk them out. The distinctions and rules on edit warring are probably our most "bright line" rules, like an electric fence which no one may cross. The only exemptions are if you are removing violations of the WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO policies from pages (not just articles) and even then, you may be called to justify those edits later. Edit warring is pretty much one of our #1 things to avoid, in the future. rootology/equality 05:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned below, I made repeated appeals to discuss. Check the talk page. I was talking to myself. Check the history. I repeatedly asked the reverter to go to the talk page. --TheThankful (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood... but even if they don't, you can't edit war past that, is the thing. The edit war (3RR) rules don't differentiate over any content but BLP & Copyvio materials. It could be an IP address's first four edits, or the 100,001-100,104th edits of the most senior user ever, and a block will likely result for edit warring. I know it may sound silly, but having that hard barrier is the only thing to deter anyone from going 'nuts' on reverting. rootology/equality 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all that, as long as everyone involved is blocked. I don't know what else i have to do to engage in discussion other than what i repeatedly did. This is very frustrating. --TheThankful (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have actually made several attempts at discussion about the edit on the talk page of Europe. I also made several pleas on my edit summary to discuss the issue on talk pages, but edits kept getting reverted. One of my 3 reverts was actually to insert a reference. A source. I feel like I have been unfairly treated in this manner, as I did my best to engage and discuss my sourced edit. Additionally, I discussed my proposed edit on the talk page of the article a couple of days before doing any edit. The only responder agreed with me, so I made the edit. Please unblock me. Kind regards The Thankful --TheThankful (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We have a strict reversion policy at wikipedia and whilst I note your reference to discussion at the the talk page - you did nevertheless revert a number of edits today despite a relevant warning on your talk page. In the future please step back from such edits and allow a day or two before you return with your views. I will also add that whilst a breach of our civility requirements is not the reason for your short block it would be good if, when you return to editing, you adjusted your discussion process with other editors so that it did not appear that you were attacking others in any way. Best wishes --VS talk 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, I updated the discussion here with your request. Seems like a lively night on ANI, someone will be over soon. rootology/equality 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion via LemborLembor - length of your original block has been increased. Please note you can be indefinitely blocked if you continue to use a secondary account in this manner.. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. --VS talk 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copped a 24 hour block for edit warring, despite my repeated attempts to engage in dialogue. The other party did not get blocked despite making threats, initiating the edit war, and refusing to either discuss in a civil manner, nor check the references (the whole book) or the facts I was presenting. Now I have been blocked for 72 hours for being LemborLembor, despite the simple reality that they and I have different ISP addresses. I am, if nothing else, being educated as to the standards of fairness, civility, and how much the "truth" in an article doesn't matter when compared to a person being "right" or more familiar with Wiki Legalese. If given the chance I would come back and quote at least 5 books, with the page numbers, seeing that quoting an entire book whose main point is the point I was making doesn't seem to be enough. Very interesting Wikipedia, thanks for the lesson.--TheThankful (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I copped a 24 hour block for edit warring, despite my repeated attempts to engage in dialogue. The other party did not get blocked despite making threats, initiating the edit war, and refusing to either discuss in a civil manner, nor check the references (the whole book) or the facts I was presenting.

Now I have been blocked for 72 hours for being LemborLembor, despite them having a different ISP address. I am not LemborLembor. I am, if nothing else, being educated as to the standards of fairness, civility, and how much the "truth" in an article doesn't matter when compared to a person being "right" or more familiar with Wiki Legalese. If given the chance I would come back and quote at least 5 books, with the page numbers, seeing that quoting an entire book whose main point is the point I was making doesn't seem to be enough.

Very interesting Wikipedia, thanks for the lesson.--TheThankful (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I copped a 24 hour block for edit warring, despite my repeated attempts to engage in dialogue. The other party did not get blocked despite making threats, initiating the edit war, and refusing to either discuss in a civil manner, nor check the references (the whole book) or the facts I was presenting. Now I have been blocked for 72 hours for being LemborLembor, despite them having a different ISP address. I am not LemborLembor. I am, if nothing else, being educated as to the standards of fairness, civility, and how much the "truth" in an article doesn't matter when compared to a person being "right" or more familiar with Wiki Legalese. If given the chance I would come back and quote at least 5 books, with the page numbers, seeing that quoting an entire book whose main point is the point I was making doesn't seem to be enough. Very interesting Wikipedia, thanks for the lesson.--[[User:TheThankful|TheThankful]] ([[User talk:TheThankful#top|talk]]) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I copped a 24 hour block for edit warring, despite my repeated attempts to engage in dialogue. The other party did not get blocked despite making threats, initiating the edit war, and refusing to either discuss in a civil manner, nor check the references (the whole book) or the facts I was presenting. Now I have been blocked for 72 hours for being LemborLembor, despite them having a different ISP address. I am not LemborLembor. I am, if nothing else, being educated as to the standards of fairness, civility, and how much the "truth" in an article doesn't matter when compared to a person being "right" or more familiar with Wiki Legalese. If given the chance I would come back and quote at least 5 books, with the page numbers, seeing that quoting an entire book whose main point is the point I was making doesn't seem to be enough. Very interesting Wikipedia, thanks for the lesson.--[[User:TheThankful|TheThankful]] ([[User talk:TheThankful#top|talk]]) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I copped a 24 hour block for edit warring, despite my repeated attempts to engage in dialogue. The other party did not get blocked despite making threats, initiating the edit war, and refusing to either discuss in a civil manner, nor check the references (the whole book) or the facts I was presenting. Now I have been blocked for 72 hours for being LemborLembor, despite them having a different ISP address. I am not LemborLembor. I am, if nothing else, being educated as to the standards of fairness, civility, and how much the "truth" in an article doesn't matter when compared to a person being "right" or more familiar with Wiki Legalese. If given the chance I would come back and quote at least 5 books, with the page numbers, seeing that quoting an entire book whose main point is the point I was making doesn't seem to be enough. Very interesting Wikipedia, thanks for the lesson.--[[User:TheThankful|TheThankful]] ([[User talk:TheThankful#top|talk]]) 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheThankful&oldid=293189007"