User talk:BaptistBolt

May 2013

Hello, I'm StAnselm. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Tullian Tchividjian, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop inserting this material. You said "All of the websites referenced come from the personal blogs of reputable theologians and pastors." That may well be true, but WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." StAnselm (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tullian Tchividjian. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tullian Tchividjian. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You need to have reliable sources for what you're saying. Blogs are not considered reliable. This isn't because we want to "censor" the article, or impose a particular viewpoint, rather , we want the article to be a reflection of what reliable sources tell us, since we can't "decide" what is true or not. I removed your post, please don't repost without reliable sources. If you have questions about whether the source you want to use is reliable, feel free to ask here .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tullian Tchividjian, you may be blocked from editing. This is your third warning. PLEASE supply a reliable source. DON'T just revert. You can and will be blocked for doing this  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Tullian Tchividjian. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

re: == From your user page ==

Considering that my edit spoke of the fact that Tullian has publicly debated other with regards to his views, and the links I referenced go DIRECTLY to those debates, there should not be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaptistBolt (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 May 2013

You need to source it to reliable sources, blogs are not considered reliable and what you've used as sources are blogs. Something like an article in : "The Sun-Sentinel", "Miami Herald", "New Times", "City Link" would be considered reliable (that's an article, not an editorial  :) ). (You could also use Time Magazine, People, etc.. again, articles, not editorials or letters to the editor.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaptistBolt, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)