User talk:Ajosephg

January 2023

Your recent editing history at Trinity 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; read about 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Trinity, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, friend: I agree with your POV, but the way you're doing it completely spoils it. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Trinity) for a period of 3 months for edit warring, logged-out editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu, User:FyzixFighter, User:Darlig Gitarist, User:Rafaelosornio, there is no doubt in my mind that this edit warrior was socking also. Ajosephg, I also placed a similar block on User talk:209.53.19.122. You may take your case to the talk page, but if you edit again without logging in, edit-warring over content and making nonsensical claims about "Christian editors", you will likely be blocked for much longer. You will also need to work on your writing, both in general and for our purposes. You made grammatical mistakes, especially in edit summaries, and "The concept's incoherence" cannot be stated as a fact. Finally, on the REALLY??? section, meaning "you should really learn how Wikipedia works", you said "This does not belong in the talk section", when you were asked TO DISCUSS THIS ON THE TALK PAGE. And of course the section was never vandalized: it was YOU who edit-warred against no fewer than five editors. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Logic and the Trinity (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads more like an abstract or a short article. Please discuss at the talk page for Trinity whether such an article is needed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Logic and the Trinity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ajosephg! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Logic and the Trinity

Hello, Ajosephg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Logic and the Trinity".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]