hello. I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point of about wiki and "no own". I have to be frank with you. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves...some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. And this is a wiki... It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear...as not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical".... This is a wiki.... No one owns that article. So please don't remove valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC);
I find your comment "I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like"" priceless. I never said I didn't like your edit. I said it was redundant. BlackCab ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I always ultimately respect and yield to consensus, regardless of whether I think it's correct or not. Please don't get it twisted. In the other article in question, that you're referring to, I DID accept consensus. Whether I thought it was wrong or not. That was the point. There was no real big "consensus" before. Just one editor or two. But leave it to you to be dishonest about what happened, and to mis-interpret it. I even said in the other article Talk, of the article that you think you own...that I would respect consensus (real consensus, not just you and Jeffro), and never violate 3RR. Also, you notice that the other editor "Grrahnbahr" said the word "true" was appropriate, but neither you nor Jeffro wanted that. And yes, I already know that it's possible to "edit-war" without violating 3RR. Because you yourself have been doing that a lot. Without violating 3RR. Just because I don't like my good-faith honest and valid sourced edits or mods removed willy nilly, and that I understandably won't put up with it, and that I'll stand up for my valid edits and additions or modifications, does not mean I'm trying to "own" the article. Coming from you, BlackCab, that's rich...that's hysterical. Yes, you do bully on said article. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it, or has said it. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Gabby has zero concensus for her edits and is arguing about an extraordinarily minor point, it's amazing that she has generated so much entirely irrelevant 'debate' on the article's Talk page and now here. I also notice that despite that, she has deleted the attempt to approach her on her own User Talk page. Gabby, there was no support for your edit. There comes a time when you should back away from the dead horse. If you believe there are other issues with the JW article (or any other article), feel free to start a new section at the relevant article's Talk page.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Gabby asks above, Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc? I have verified that the answer to that question is that no such statement appears in JW literature for over 40 years (at least).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You see stuff in others, that you don't see in yourself or in your tag-team partner, Jeffo77. And I only mentioned that obvious fact of tag-teaming after Jeffro77 hurled stupid accusations at me of trying to "game the system" by waiting just over the 24 hours. Meanwhile his own arguable "gaming" of trying to get around "3RR" by you two always reverting (combined being MORE then 3 reverts in 24 hours) has become obvious. And others over the years have accused you both of "meat-puppetting" or at least that type of behavior, that could be deemed (and has been by other editors over the years) as such. Spare me your outrage, and hypocrisy. You whine about "repetition" on my part, but don't say a word about it when Jeffro77 keeps repeating his same lines and points. Which prompts me to repeat mine. Also, lectures on "civility" coming from you is hilarious. Really. Again, try being consistent in your complaints, or don't complain at all. Thanks. Gabby Merger ( talk) 11:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Re your revert to the 'Evangelism' section.
But source material does not say that the individual, on completing the course, is expected to become baptized as a member.
Either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an indidual is expected to become a member on completion of the bible study course, or the article should be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. Of course, 'evangelism' is one thing, and 'becoming a disciple' is another. Maybe the distinction between the two should also be made clearer in the article. Lepton6 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab. I'm just checking with the movers and shakers about their plans. After the NZ "Region" articles have been renamed, are you planning to propose similar rename/moves for the "District" articles, and/or the "Province" and "County" articles? I have already asked Good Olfactory. Nurg ( talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You have me on the RNSWR as you are correct, the unit under that name was formed in 1960 about a century too late. I was going off the book "To Face the Daring Maoris: Soldiers' impressions of the First Maori War 1845-47" by Michael Barthorp as it mentions a NSW regiment which is what confused me. I will look up the reference when I have time, but Barthorp refers to various regiments which took part in the wars which were British regiments, but which included Australian and even South African troops who had joined while the units were stationed in those areas. There is also reference to the Honourable East India Company's Bengal Artillery, but I suppose that qualifies as militia. Djapa Owen ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The assessment is preliminary, pending a more detailed review of the article - you should take it to read, on the surface it is a least this level, but it could be higher. Once one of us from the NZ project gets the chance we'll take a deeper look at it and reassess the ratings. Hope this helps. NealeFamily ( talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. St★lwart 111 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we've turned a corner (or a new leaf) and I wanted to demonstrate, in the interests of moving forward, that it can work and work well. I consider Talk:Accenture a great example of COI done well and I've played an active role there after referral from WP:COIN. That's a much larger company with a much larger reach and an editor with a long-term, openly-declared COI. Talk:Winton Capital Management too. St★lwart 111 13:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Chin Chin (album), BlackCab!
Wikipedia editor Fevrret just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This is an helpful article about a notable album.
To reply, leave a comment on Fevrret's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hey,was just wondering if you thought that the jehovas wittnesis are a bit imparialist?or may have similar beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.69.125 ( talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab
Just a couple of things to help your recent edits/articles. Skunkhour played the Caloundra Music Festival on Friday October 3, 2014. They were fantastic! I was covering the festival and have some great shots that I would be happy to add to the article. Just let me know if you'd like those and any other info regarding the CMF show. As it is "your article", I thought it better that I contact you. You are free to reply here or email me - marc@austin-zande.net
Cheers
Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin-zande ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
WHAT DID I TELL YOU ON MY EDIT SUMMARY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
BlackCab, just wanted to thank you again for the books that you wikipedia-mailed me with regarding my question for Jeffro. I hadn't yet run into one or two of them, so they will be useful. Vyselink ( talk) 23:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Allright, i understand, thanks. -- Pediainsight ( talk) 11:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
To me, the inclusion of the "Known Apostates" section and repeated reverts and changing sourced material deserves an immediate ANI request to block him, as it is quite clear that they have no intention of abiding WP guidelines. Thoughts? Vyselink ( talk) 10:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it now. I've never done it before, so I'll do my best, but feel free to chime in on the ANI board. Vyselink ( talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vyselink ( talk) 12:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You've warned this IP. I note he/she is continually receiving warnings and simply blanks the talk page.[123.100.149.51] From the IP's interests, I conclude it is one editor with a static IP. Any thoughts about any action that should be taken - or no action? Please ping me if you feel this is worth replying to. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the 3 revert rule apply to people who continue to remove another's posting? Especially if the posting is factually based and backed by references? I really do want to know. Ever rule or rules I've read allows for providing accurate referenced information. STravelli. {{subst:STravelli|}}
I really appreciate your input and help. I truly want to follow the rules. And I'm trying to be objective. It just seems logical that if someone posts something saying that 1+1 = 5 and posts references it should be appropriate to post 1+1= 2 and post a reference accordingly. STravelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have read carefully what you recommended BlackCab. I truly thank you. Everyone is a neophyte at one time or another and I appreciate your help and patience. The one thing I haven't figured out yet is where the common area is on a subject where I can receive an explanation from others as to why something I've posted is not allowed on the site. I will keep looking and learning but thank you again. STravelli ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)STravelli STravelli ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab,
I've enjoyed your contributions to the Black War and your expansion of the Tasmanian wikipedia page. May I ask where your interest of Tasmania comes from? Aaroncrick TALK 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for mentioning the Biliography of JW's page. I hadn't known it existed. Oh, and you might be interested to know that I will be starting my PhD in October, and the subject of my dissertation will be the JW's. Vyselink ( talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall. Vyselink ( talk) 00:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting at the AfD. I've been in two minds about this article for some time. I'd still like to hear responses from other editors. Strictly speaking, it doesn't really qualify for inclusion (the relevant guideline states, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"), but as I stated at the AfD, quite a bit of effort has gone into it (not a small part of it by me).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See MOS:INTRO. Drmies ( talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you know of any way to determine how many Bible Students there were in 1919? Alan Rogerson claims in Millions Now Living Will Never Die (page 44 in my copy, chapter 2, near the end of the section titled "The Transition Period") that only 4,000 adherents remained in 1919 after the Rutherford trial and schism w/in the church etc, but gives no source for this information. I've found no sources that state as such in the WT literature of the time that I have (mostly the magazine), but the Dec 15th, 1919 WT's numbers for talks given, money received, total attendance at meetings, etc. appears to show quite a bit in excess of 4,000 (i'm assuming he meant only the States, as if he meant the world there is almost certainly no question he was wrong). Thanks for any help. Vyselink ( talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cab. Anything you can do will help, even if it's just to confirm that there's really no way to know. Don't rush on my part. Vyselink ( talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Another question, when you have the time and if you can find the answer. When did the Witnesses start using the phonographs? Rogerson and Penton don't state, and neither does the Faith on the March. Vyselink ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
NVM. I checked Divine Purpose and it states it in there. Forget it. Vyselink ( talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note [here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_Accusation] Roller958 ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If you checked you would see that firstly WP:MOSALBUMS is only a 'guide' and that it is not an enforceable requirement. Secondly MOSALBUMS does not restrict the inclusion of references for songwriters - when articles on albums have been considered for GA status it is commonly required that verification be provided for all songwriters. Thirdly MOSALBUMS permits Technical Personnel (including producers) as valid inclusions on the credits for a recording. I suggest that you re-read MOSALBUMS before making unilateral changes in the future. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Sweeter Than the Radio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive 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.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
you assume I'm at fault in this matter, for personal bias, plus you have your own issues yourself. You have zero credibility therefore, and are irrelevant yourself. You've been in trouble before for your own "nonsense", as your copious history over the months and years clearly shows. Also, nice stalking and following me around to even know about this. Furthering my point. Gabby Merger ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
hi dear friend. could you please paraphrase; "It provides the young child with an introduction to books and the Peter Rabbit universe." thanks more info [4] Alborzagros ( talk) 10:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 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)
16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on using the sandbox, I should have explored Wikipedia more to come to a better understanding of how to use it. The only reason I changed the "dissociated people are wicked" sentence on the Jehovah's Witness page is because the source speaks of disfellowshiping. The acts of a person are deemed wicked, not the person. I think how that sentence was written is confusing.
Best, Allgone266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgone266 ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
hello. I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point of about wiki and "no own". I have to be frank with you. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves...some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. And this is a wiki... It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear...as not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical".... This is a wiki.... No one owns that article. So please don't remove valid modifications for "I don't like" reasons. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC);
I find your comment "I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like"" priceless. I never said I didn't like your edit. I said it was redundant. BlackCab ( talk) 02:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I always ultimately respect and yield to consensus, regardless of whether I think it's correct or not. Please don't get it twisted. In the other article in question, that you're referring to, I DID accept consensus. Whether I thought it was wrong or not. That was the point. There was no real big "consensus" before. Just one editor or two. But leave it to you to be dishonest about what happened, and to mis-interpret it. I even said in the other article Talk, of the article that you think you own...that I would respect consensus (real consensus, not just you and Jeffro), and never violate 3RR. Also, you notice that the other editor "Grrahnbahr" said the word "true" was appropriate, but neither you nor Jeffro wanted that. And yes, I already know that it's possible to "edit-war" without violating 3RR. Because you yourself have been doing that a lot. Without violating 3RR. Just because I don't like my good-faith honest and valid sourced edits or mods removed willy nilly, and that I understandably won't put up with it, and that I'll stand up for my valid edits and additions or modifications, does not mean I'm trying to "own" the article. Coming from you, BlackCab, that's rich...that's hysterical. Yes, you do bully on said article. And I'm not the only one who has noticed it, or has said it. Regards. Gabby Merger ( talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Gabby has zero concensus for her edits and is arguing about an extraordinarily minor point, it's amazing that she has generated so much entirely irrelevant 'debate' on the article's Talk page and now here. I also notice that despite that, she has deleted the attempt to approach her on her own User Talk page. Gabby, there was no support for your edit. There comes a time when you should back away from the dead horse. If you believe there are other issues with the JW article (or any other article), feel free to start a new section at the relevant article's Talk page.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Gabby asks above, Do you deny that JWs themselves (whether we agree with the wording or not) have stated phrases like "pagan origins not compatible with the Bible" in any of their writings, books, etc? I have verified that the answer to that question is that no such statement appears in JW literature for over 40 years (at least).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 11:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You see stuff in others, that you don't see in yourself or in your tag-team partner, Jeffo77. And I only mentioned that obvious fact of tag-teaming after Jeffro77 hurled stupid accusations at me of trying to "game the system" by waiting just over the 24 hours. Meanwhile his own arguable "gaming" of trying to get around "3RR" by you two always reverting (combined being MORE then 3 reverts in 24 hours) has become obvious. And others over the years have accused you both of "meat-puppetting" or at least that type of behavior, that could be deemed (and has been by other editors over the years) as such. Spare me your outrage, and hypocrisy. You whine about "repetition" on my part, but don't say a word about it when Jeffro77 keeps repeating his same lines and points. Which prompts me to repeat mine. Also, lectures on "civility" coming from you is hilarious. Really. Again, try being consistent in your complaints, or don't complain at all. Thanks. Gabby Merger ( talk) 11:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Re your revert to the 'Evangelism' section.
But source material does not say that the individual, on completing the course, is expected to become baptized as a member.
Either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an indidual is expected to become a member on completion of the bible study course, or the article should be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. Of course, 'evangelism' is one thing, and 'becoming a disciple' is another. Maybe the distinction between the two should also be made clearer in the article. Lepton6 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab. I'm just checking with the movers and shakers about their plans. After the NZ "Region" articles have been renamed, are you planning to propose similar rename/moves for the "District" articles, and/or the "Province" and "County" articles? I have already asked Good Olfactory. Nurg ( talk) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You have me on the RNSWR as you are correct, the unit under that name was formed in 1960 about a century too late. I was going off the book "To Face the Daring Maoris: Soldiers' impressions of the First Maori War 1845-47" by Michael Barthorp as it mentions a NSW regiment which is what confused me. I will look up the reference when I have time, but Barthorp refers to various regiments which took part in the wars which were British regiments, but which included Australian and even South African troops who had joined while the units were stationed in those areas. There is also reference to the Honourable East India Company's Bengal Artillery, but I suppose that qualifies as militia. Djapa Owen ( talk) 11:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The assessment is preliminary, pending a more detailed review of the article - you should take it to read, on the surface it is a least this level, but it could be higher. Once one of us from the NZ project gets the chance we'll take a deeper look at it and reassess the ratings. Hope this helps. NealeFamily ( talk) 04:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. St★lwart 111 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we've turned a corner (or a new leaf) and I wanted to demonstrate, in the interests of moving forward, that it can work and work well. I consider Talk:Accenture a great example of COI done well and I've played an active role there after referral from WP:COIN. That's a much larger company with a much larger reach and an editor with a long-term, openly-declared COI. Talk:Winton Capital Management too. St★lwart 111 13:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Chin Chin (album), BlackCab!
Wikipedia editor Fevrret just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This is an helpful article about a notable album.
To reply, leave a comment on Fevrret's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hey,was just wondering if you thought that the jehovas wittnesis are a bit imparialist?or may have similar beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.69.125 ( talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab
Just a couple of things to help your recent edits/articles. Skunkhour played the Caloundra Music Festival on Friday October 3, 2014. They were fantastic! I was covering the festival and have some great shots that I would be happy to add to the article. Just let me know if you'd like those and any other info regarding the CMF show. As it is "your article", I thought it better that I contact you. You are free to reply here or email me - marc@austin-zande.net
Cheers
Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin-zande ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
WHAT DID I TELL YOU ON MY EDIT SUMMARY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt200055 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
BlackCab, just wanted to thank you again for the books that you wikipedia-mailed me with regarding my question for Jeffro. I hadn't yet run into one or two of them, so they will be useful. Vyselink ( talk) 23:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Allright, i understand, thanks. -- Pediainsight ( talk) 11:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
To me, the inclusion of the "Known Apostates" section and repeated reverts and changing sourced material deserves an immediate ANI request to block him, as it is quite clear that they have no intention of abiding WP guidelines. Thoughts? Vyselink ( talk) 10:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it now. I've never done it before, so I'll do my best, but feel free to chime in on the ANI board. Vyselink ( talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vyselink ( talk) 12:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You've warned this IP. I note he/she is continually receiving warnings and simply blanks the talk page.[123.100.149.51] From the IP's interests, I conclude it is one editor with a static IP. Any thoughts about any action that should be taken - or no action? Please ping me if you feel this is worth replying to. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Does the 3 revert rule apply to people who continue to remove another's posting? Especially if the posting is factually based and backed by references? I really do want to know. Ever rule or rules I've read allows for providing accurate referenced information. STravelli. {{subst:STravelli|}}
I really appreciate your input and help. I truly want to follow the rules. And I'm trying to be objective. It just seems logical that if someone posts something saying that 1+1 = 5 and posts references it should be appropriate to post 1+1= 2 and post a reference accordingly. STravelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have read carefully what you recommended BlackCab. I truly thank you. Everyone is a neophyte at one time or another and I appreciate your help and patience. The one thing I haven't figured out yet is where the common area is on a subject where I can receive an explanation from others as to why something I've posted is not allowed on the site. I will keep looking and learning but thank you again. STravelli ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)STravelli STravelli ( talk) 00:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BlackCab,
I've enjoyed your contributions to the Black War and your expansion of the Tasmanian wikipedia page. May I ask where your interest of Tasmania comes from? Aaroncrick TALK 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick thanks for mentioning the Biliography of JW's page. I hadn't known it existed. Oh, and you might be interested to know that I will be starting my PhD in October, and the subject of my dissertation will be the JW's. Vyselink ( talk) 18:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall. Vyselink ( talk) 00:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting at the AfD. I've been in two minds about this article for some time. I'd still like to hear responses from other editors. Strictly speaking, it doesn't really qualify for inclusion (the relevant guideline states, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"), but as I stated at the AfD, quite a bit of effort has gone into it (not a small part of it by me).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
See MOS:INTRO. Drmies ( talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you know of any way to determine how many Bible Students there were in 1919? Alan Rogerson claims in Millions Now Living Will Never Die (page 44 in my copy, chapter 2, near the end of the section titled "The Transition Period") that only 4,000 adherents remained in 1919 after the Rutherford trial and schism w/in the church etc, but gives no source for this information. I've found no sources that state as such in the WT literature of the time that I have (mostly the magazine), but the Dec 15th, 1919 WT's numbers for talks given, money received, total attendance at meetings, etc. appears to show quite a bit in excess of 4,000 (i'm assuming he meant only the States, as if he meant the world there is almost certainly no question he was wrong). Thanks for any help. Vyselink ( talk) 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cab. Anything you can do will help, even if it's just to confirm that there's really no way to know. Don't rush on my part. Vyselink ( talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Another question, when you have the time and if you can find the answer. When did the Witnesses start using the phonographs? Rogerson and Penton don't state, and neither does the Faith on the March. Vyselink ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
NVM. I checked Divine Purpose and it states it in there. Forget it. Vyselink ( talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note [here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_Accusation] Roller958 ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If you checked you would see that firstly WP:MOSALBUMS is only a 'guide' and that it is not an enforceable requirement. Secondly MOSALBUMS does not restrict the inclusion of references for songwriters - when articles on albums have been considered for GA status it is commonly required that verification be provided for all songwriters. Thirdly MOSALBUMS permits Technical Personnel (including producers) as valid inclusions on the credits for a recording. I suggest that you re-read MOSALBUMS before making unilateral changes in the future. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The article Sweeter Than the Radio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive 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.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
you assume I'm at fault in this matter, for personal bias, plus you have your own issues yourself. You have zero credibility therefore, and are irrelevant yourself. You've been in trouble before for your own "nonsense", as your copious history over the months and years clearly shows. Also, nice stalking and following me around to even know about this. Furthering my point. Gabby Merger ( talk) 21:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
hi dear friend. could you please paraphrase; "It provides the young child with an introduction to books and the Peter Rabbit universe." thanks more info [4] Alborzagros ( talk) 10:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 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)
16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on using the sandbox, I should have explored Wikipedia more to come to a better understanding of how to use it. The only reason I changed the "dissociated people are wicked" sentence on the Jehovah's Witness page is because the source speaks of disfellowshiping. The acts of a person are deemed wicked, not the person. I think how that sentence was written is confusing.
Best, Allgone266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgone266 ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)