User talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34
May 2021
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Prosperity theology, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Prosperity theology. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Prosperity theology, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think that the source itself or the content of the paragraph should be changed, you can open a new section and discuss about it on Talk:Prosperity theology. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@GenoV84: You are the one who needs to familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines. You are being disruptive to try to make a point, and that is not permitted. Adding outside opinion articles that do not provide evidence in order to attempt to make a point about what you think is not permitted, and I rightly removed your violation of the rules and guidelines. Opening up a section on the talk page is not necessary for that, as what you did is a blatant violation and not permitted. It appears you are willing to get in an edit war over your indefensible behavior, so I will graciously open up a section on the talk page, but you must refrain in the future from demanding those who are removing clear violations do so. In the meantime, your reversion has been undone, as you are the one who must present evidence for why that belongs and doesn't violate the guidelines and rules. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Prosperity theology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Prosperity theology, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: GenoV84 is the one ionvolved in an edit war and in violation of the rules, not me. It was noted by another user on his talk page that he was out of line for what he did to me on the article and how he falsely accused me of vandalism. GenoV84's edit is the one that must be reverted while the matter is discussed on the talk page, as he is the one in violation of multiple rules. So your undoing of my edit needs to me reverted while the matter is discussed on the talk page. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Prosperity theology, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I have responded. The template you provided is only for individuals who do have a paid conflict of interest. As I am not employed by the LDS Church, I do not meet the criteria for filling out that form. I do not know where you got your mistaken impression that I am a paid employee of the LDS Church, but this is incorrect. I am a lay member of the LDS Church, and undid the disruptive edit by GenoV84 because he is using a highly editorialized opinion article to attempt to falsely give readers the impression that the criticism of prosperity theology by Dallin H. Oaks given in the article is knowingly false and disingenuous. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34, I apologize for labeling your edit as vandalism when I reverted it; I've been precipitous in my judgement and I should have dealt with it in a more thoughtful and polite manner since the beginning. I didn't mean to offend or harass you. GenoV84 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! —valereee (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |