User talk:Perspicacious/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Perspicacious. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Perspicacious/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

You might also want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church -Fermion 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So why are you posting your own original internet material on wikipedia? Ansell 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Church "off-shoots and schismatics"

Perspicacious, I have reverted your edits to Seventh-day Adventist Church. I ask that before you reinclude your information that you look at my comment on the articles talk page. I also request that until some sort of decision is reached there that you do not continue to make changes to the section in question. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 13:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we resolve this dispute on talk pages?

Perspicacious, I would like to request that you cease to make continual reverts and edits to Seventh-day Adventist Church while your very edits are being discussed on the talk page. This is a very provocative editing style and will not help the overall page at all. Please do cease making continual edits to make your point and discuss the issue on the talk page. MyNameIsNotBob 22:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Second that, it is more reasonable to keep a consistent article, and develop disputed sections on the talk pages. Ansell 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I assume you know that we are both in breach of WP:3RR, as such, wouldn't it be a good idea to give reverting a rest and discuss the issue properly and as suggested on Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church? Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You have just been reported, [1]. You had been warned. -Fermion 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 6 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Seventh-day Adventist Church. When you return, please discuss reverts on the talk page rather than simply undoing edits unilaterally. If consensus is on your side, you will not need to continually re-revert yourself. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

VfD and adding lots of information

You do realise that there is a discussion page associated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Maxwell and you could leave related information on the talk page rather than cluttering up what should be for the purpose of voting. MyNameIsNotBob 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sdainfo

~~Please do not go around making up new accounts so we think there are other people on wikipedia who share your views.~~ Ansell 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the fact that a new user was recalling a previous version was considerably like the above, but alas it was not. Ansell 09:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Verified sources?

You tell me that newspaper articles are hardly verifiable and you are referencing 10 year old articles over another reference on the page from Walter Martin of 1997 that shows an obvious reversal of your 1990 cited articles. Please explain? MyNameIsNotBob 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendly tip (honestly)

You may find the tutorials on Wikipedia:Citing sources useful. When you reference copys of publications, reference the original publication and use the templates to direct to a url ie Template:Cite web. MyNameIsNotBob 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Seventh-day Adventist Church

Please dont make us lose our good faith in editors on wikipedia by straight reverting. You say to look at the talk page however you neglect to continue the discussion there. As the instigator of the huge changes to the introduction on the page you have the responsibility to fully defend your actions. it is not for the rest of the editors to have to fully negate all of your claims, of which you dont have many on the talk page that are objective, if any. Please don't be the instigator of another edit war. Its not fun or productive for anyone. Ansell 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. MyNameIsNotBob 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Seventh-day Adventist Church, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MyNameIsNotBob 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism has consequences

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Seventh-day Adventist Church, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MyNameIsNotBob 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia, for . To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism, and may get your block extended. LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Removing redirect on Seventh-day Adventism

Please do not go around removing redirects just to put your POV on wikipedia. Ansell 03:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A Final Stern Warning

You have been repeatedly warned by myself, Ansell and Fermion to stop adding unnecessary divergent links to encyclopedia articles, in particular adding your own web page, www.everythingimportant.org to articles relating to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Recently you have taken to ignoring the community consensus and not assuming the good faith of other editors. Your reconstruction of Seventh-day Adventism was a blatant breach of the NPOV policy, and almost every other policy in place. This is my final warning before requesting admin intervention. Just remember, if the admins find you guilty, you will be blocked. This includes edits by anonymous IP addresses, which you seem particularly fond of doing, by the large list of IP addresses that have made identical edits to the ones you have. Please, do not simply continue editing articles without reaching a consensus on these issues. You are welcome to ask for help from other editors should you so choose, a good place is Requests for Comment. I would strongly suggest you do so. MyNameIsNotBob 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

{{sectNPOV}} tag

You know you are meant to leave comments on the talk page after adding tags like that? So can you go and explain yourself there.MyNameIsNotBob 20:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you know what to do. -Fermion 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:AGF? Labelling someone's changes as "ridiculous [sic]" when placing an unjustified tag is not constructive. Please explain in simple terms your problems on the talk pages. -Fermion 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MyNam e IsNotBob 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

As I am sure you are well aware, the recent flurry of edits to Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have not been without controversy. I am of the opinion that the number of edits is extermely bloated and perhaps a little unconstructive. As such I would like to make some simple suggestions:

Firstly, I ask that you bear in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such original research is not appropriate, as per WP:NOR. When you do add content to the page, reference the original piece of work that you attained the information from (this means not referencing your page, but rather the facts referenced on that page). A good set of pointers may be found at WP:CITE. Generally a properly cited fact is hard to dispute.

Second, write with a neutral voice. Wikipedia is most certainly not an op-ed piece and WP:NPOV is perhaps the most highly held and defended policy. WP:PERFECT says "the perfect article.. ..is completely neutral and unbiased;". This includes such things as balanced points of views and not using weasel terms.

Third, when you wish to add information that could be considered controversial, suggest what you want to include on the talk page first. I strongly suggest you think your comments through to avoid personal attacks which a number of users have complained of you doing. This something that an admin will not tolerate and could result in you being blocked, bearing in mind that your record will make the admin inclined to block you for a longer period of time. As a suggestion for an approach to the criticism of the Adventist church page, I would recommend that you propose your exact changes on the talk page first and allow the other editors to voice their opinions and help you to formulate a valuable contribution before transferring that to the page.

I hope that this has been constructive and that you are enjoying your editing experience. Feel free to ask should you have any further questions.

Regards -- MyNam e IsNotBob 08:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is vandalism?

In response to your comment Replacing an accurate statement with a false statement is vandalism. on Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. WP:VAND clearly states that vandalism reverts are only for obvious vandalism which refers to statements like This is bull, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a cult and Ellen White was a whore. Reverting in general is strongly discouraged, hence the three revert rule policy. To tag someone elses edit as vandalism it is very hard to justify that you are in accordance with WP:AGF (assume good faith) as often what may appear vandalism could be an honest attempt to improve the article.

I would also like to take the opportunity to affirm you for a noticable improvement in your editing and willingless to cooperate within content disputes. Keep it up and happy editing. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith....

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --MyNam e IsNotBob 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discuss your changes

Please discuss your changes, particularly your lengthy inclusion of a direct quote from the fundamentals statement. The purpose of the criticisms page is to briefly outline the criticism followed by a brief rebuttal. Putting the entire fundamental down when it appears on the main page under doctrine is not what the page is for. Please discuss this change, other than your summary which refers to a distortion which you have so far refused to expand on. Ans e ll Review my progress! 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. MyNam e IsNotBob 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

I don't believe a bulletin board is just evidence to conclude that an organisation does not exist. My local church bulletin board is never used, but that does not mean that we don't continue to meet on a Sabbath morning. There appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest that there were court cases between a group under the above name and the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This seems to suggest to me that the church you believe is mythical either does or did exist. MyNam e IsNotBob 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

: The SDA Church sues any renegade SDA group that has influence if they are using the SDA trademark name. The Creation SDA Church was threatened with a lawsuit but the General Conference obviously found out that Walter McGill, a.k.a. "Pastor Chick" is just a fraud with a huge web presence. I've talked with "Pastor Chick" on the phone years ago and know that he represents himself and doesn't own or rent a church building.

~~: I'm not protesting strongly. I don't mind if managing Wikipedia editors are taken as fools. --Perspicacious 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)~~

No worries, I can understand where you are coming from. The argument in your original summary didn't seem particularly watertight. MyNam e IsNotBob 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was actually "the blind" edit. I can see from your talk page history that you've been warned in the past for editing. Please refrain from reverting an article before looking at the talk page to see the history of the discussion. Shubee's edits were challenged by several people and they were justifiably reverted. Again, read the talk page and become familiar with the issue before blindly reverting and falsly POV reverting edits. --Maniwar (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits

You reverted every change I made to the page here and you quoted just one reason in your edit summary. Do not do this in future. Ans e ll 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Referencing assistance

Would you be able to help me out with the referencing of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church by merging or cleaning up references 34 and 40, and, 41 and 42 please? Thanks, and happy editing. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't help you with anything, except to expose your anti-Adventist beliefs and to ask you to stop misrepresenting Seventh-day Adventism. --Perspicacious 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)