User talk:BedrockPerson

Welcome!

Hello, BedrockPerson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I've blocked 186.79.224.133 for edit warring. If you had received a prior warning about it, I'd've blocked you as well since you were just as guilty. Here's the standard warning:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Japheth page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Incisive papilla that fucking lump.png

Thanks for uploading File:Incisive papilla that fucking lump.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BedrockPerson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Occupied Palestine Resolution copyright concern

I have removed the text of the Resolution from the above article, because our non-free content policy prohibits excessive or long quotations from copyright material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

Hello, in future please don't use misleading edit summaries to make controversial edits, as you did here. Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Moses.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Robert Kiyosaki. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. This unexplained revert is disruptive. I won't call it vandalism, but rolling back an edit like that without any explanation is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)

Please go to the article's talk page. Earlier reports the battle was over were premature, with the offensive/fighting resuming [1] after the collapse of the ceasefire today. No sources are calling up to 14 Dec. the main phase and today's sources clearly state rebel territory still covers 2.5 square km [2], about 1 percent. EkoGraf (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Will refrain from editing. Thank you. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and no problem. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"as an anon no less"

That could be construed as inappropriate, unless you had evidence that that editor was using their IP to avoid scrutiny. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any staff

so why are you claiming we do? And you'd better read WP:Edit warring: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Administrators like me determine what is edit warring. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you've been told before that edit warring isn't exclusively breaking 3RR in 24 hours. So that part of my message shouldn't have been necessary. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Solomon's Temple shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. Note that the abusive use of multiple accounts or evasion of a blockage may result to you to have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. This is your first and only official warning (and third warning overall) about sockpuppetry. Any further edits you make with 47.20.180.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) or any other accounts (or IP addresses) will result in a report to WP:SPI. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.103.22 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Please do not change the status of SPI cases. That's reserved for clerks, admins, and checkusers. Regards, GAB^gab 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Yeah I didn't see the note. My bad. BedrockPerson (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Jewish holidays

Hi, BedrockPerson. At risk of sounding like an WP:OWNER, there is a reason that I strongly preferred the original organizational scheme. The rest of the article is organized by holiday, and "High Holy Days" isn't a holiday, it's a season of holidays. And just what that phrase encompasses is not always agreed uniformly. So if you feel strongly about it, would you mind taking it to Talk:Jewish holidays first? If there is consensus there—and I would state my preference there, then be quiet—then I'll be happy to concede the point. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Occupied Palestine Resolution page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

I see you have been warned about edit warring before. Wikipedia is about community editing. When reverted, you should not continue to push your opinion in edits, but rasher discuss the issue first on the talkpage, and make an additional edit only if and after a clear consensus has been reached. See WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. One more edit without discussing it first, and I will have you blocked. This is a site for community editing, and even if you would be ten times right, but you may not edit war. I am of course referring to your behavior on Kingdom of Judah.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Reference errors on 6 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the European Union page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:JeroboamAltar.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JeroboamAltar.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus and Yahweh

Hi BedrockPerson. The perceived resemblance (per Plutarch and his contemporaries/sources) is indeed fascinating, but cannot be considered a reliable guide to the real-world functional or theological equivalence of Dionysus/Bacchus and the God of the Jews. Plutarch and the source authors he used in this construction - or rather, interpretive re-construction of Judaic ritual and its meaning (particularly Sukkot) - almost certainly had no personal or observational experience of Judaism or its theology. And one can absolutely guarantee that no rabbinical or Sadduċee source would support it. This is one of those frequent instances of a remarkable assertion by primary sources as potentially misleading; I've come across no secondary or tertiary source that supports the equation of Bacchus and Yahweh - the question is extensively covered by several such modern secondary sources. One example covers the background: James M. Scott, "Bacchius Iudaeus: A Denarius Commemorating Pompey’s Victory over Judea" Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, 104. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. And another here - Przemysław Piwowarczyk, The Jewish Festival of Sukkot in the Eyes of the Pagan Authors, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Scripta Classica

Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize. BedrockPerson's edit to Dionysus seems to have been motivated as the result of a misunderstanding of what I wrote in the article on Yahweh. In the article, I briefly mentioned the fact that Plutarch equated Yahweh with Dionysus. BedrockPerson seems to have misunderstood what I was saying and interpreted this to mean that Yahweh was the Jewish equivalent of Dionysus, which is completely false. Just because one Greek writer interpreted Yahweh and Dionysus as equivalent does not mean there was actually any connection between the two. In any case, even if there was a connection between them, there would certainly be no justification for listing Yahweh as the Canaanite equivalent of Dionysus in the infobox since this would be thoroughly misleading at the very best. I may go back to my edit and revise it to make sure that this point is made entirely clear. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a commendable attitude! And thank you for clarifying. Haploidavey (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Croesus does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kendall-K1. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kim Jong-nam, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. We can't use "infobox criminal" for these women because they have not been convicted of any crime. See the template documentation and the BLP policy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1240s BC

So, when did each of these events happen? What's your evidence? — Smjg (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: Dude. We have a page for Deborah AND The Battle of Mount Tabor with plenty of citations for the 12th and 11th century. You're placing events in the late 13th century. Seriously, read and do some research before you fly off the handles. The earliest estimate for Deborah's birth is 1107 BCE, that's more than 130 years after you said she partook in a battle that occurred in the middle of her life. Come on man. BedrockPerson (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I guess your edit just looked like vandalism because (a) those events had remained there for 10 years (b) removing them left the page with no actual content. Still, why are you accusing me of placing them at that time? I didn't add them to the page in the first place. — Smjg (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: Yeah, well…I suppose I probably could've at least provided an edit reason or something. BedrockPerson (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a funny, off topic question...

How does one manages to become both Karaite Jew, as well as a Reform Jew? Either way, it is always nice to find a Karaite Jew.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: It really just comes down to retaining Reform values while holding Torah as a higher authority over Talmud or something like that. BedrockPerson (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... Nice to meet you and have a great Purim.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

As I understand it, you have just broken the 1RR on Yarka

Please self revert, or you might get reported, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

~~You've been blocked for 24 hours for exceeding the One revert rule contingent upon Palestine-Israel articles 3 Arbitration Restrictions. Please be more careful in the future.~~ El_C 02:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was mislead. ARBPIA notice was not attached to the article. I will do so now. You are, meanwhile, unblocked with my apologies. I should have looked rather than take someone's word for it, so that's on me. Note that 1RR restrictions will come into effect as soon as I attach the ARBPIA notice to the talk page. Sorry, again. El_C 02:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Well, damaged professionalism aside, I appreciate the fact you took the time to apologize for the mistake. BedrockPerson (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked over 3,000 users, my professionalism can take the hit! I regret though it came at your expense albeit briefly. I was under a misapprehension, but should have done the leg-work. So, again, that's on me. I've now attached the ARBPIA notice and semiprotected the page per the now-active restrictions. Thanks. El_C 02:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Hey, all's well as they say. BedrockPerson (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not 100 percent on there needing to be a notice for the restrictions to be in effect. That's just my understanding of of ARBPIA3, which I've yet to confirm. It's possible that any user can invoke them on any related article. I've not read ARBPIA3 closely enough to know for sure. But erring on the side of caution seemed prudent. The block may well have been valid after all. But I think I acted correctly by unblocking you rather than keeping you blocked while I found out. El_C 02:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no need for a notice on the page. As long as an editor is aware of the restrictions in general, he is supposed to know which pages they applies to himself. I do agree that erring on the side of leniency is a good thing, usually. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason to apply ARBPIA sanctions on that page. It has nothing to do with the conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. True. I asked the protecting editors, NeilN and El C for explanation. Debresser (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Here. Huldra (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Sir Joseph. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Purim without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPA block

Because I already warned you about making personal attacks, you have been blocked for 24 hours for calling Huldra a "moron" a second time. Please don't do this again. El_C 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Moron is male, and Huldra is very touchy about being female, so she can't be a moron. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel of Death. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ethnic divisions

Instead of edit-warring and leaving nasty edit summaries, please try to be civil and join the discussion at Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Jewish ethnic divisions instead of trying to force your image into the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Well done retard, looks like you're finally going to get the lengthy block that you deserve. Given your background, I don't think anyone's too surprised that you've been caught out being devious and underhanded. The time when you and your kind can continue spreading lies here is coming to an end. Just another avid reader. (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Just another avid reader.: Oh jeez, you called me a retard. That's it I'm done, you've beaten me. It's not often I hear the worst insult known to the third grade mind. BedrockPerson (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand one less schizophrenic hook-nosed dweeb on Wikipedia, coming up. Clint Bagwood (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single edit accounts. Don't even bother to reply or report them. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Figured as much. Feh. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

When we move an article to a new name, as you did with Umm at-Tut to Umm al-Tut, we do not start a new article. Instead we use the "move" button on the top of the page (it is between the "history" and "watch/unwatch" buttons). This, so that the article history will remain intact, (I cannot be bothered with all the bureaucracy of undoing your edit this time, but for the next time....) Huldra (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra You can ask an admin to fix this for you. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 12:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Huldra: WTF guys! You deleted half the page and put all the errors back! Are you daft? What did this?! You just murdered this article's quality! It's a mess again! El_C, why would you do that?! Did anyone even bother to check the new page to see if any additions were added? A good thirty edits have been completely erased! Fix it! BedrockPerson (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 4 revisions got deleted, there's no technical way around that. Next time, please use the move function. El_C 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Really, just four? Huh. Guess I overestimated Huldra's productivity. BedrockPerson (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C: Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:North Country Reform Temple

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:North Country Reform Temple, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing on North Country Reform Temple

I note that in North Country Reform Temple you cite a book That I May dwell Among them several times. Can you please provide page numbers for the specific citations? This can be done by using {{rp}} wihtout needing to create multiple uses of {{cite book}} for the same source. Or you can use the page= or pages= parameter in cite book.

Please note that I added citaion metadata for the two NY Times articles cited, and added the OCLC number for the book, since it apparently does not have an ISBN. DES ^(talk) 19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North Country Reform Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple Kol Ami. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material in Infoboxes

Hello,

This is in reference to your reversion of my edits on eight pages: Abdon (Judges), Ibzan, Othniel, Jair, Tola (biblical figure), Abimelech (Judges)]], Shamgar, Ehud.

As you really should know by now, because you’ve already been involved in disagreements over infoboxes, all material on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources. When material is not sourced to reliable sources, it can be removed. When material is removed because it is unsourced, it should not be added back in to an article.

You can find this in Wikipedia policy at WP:PROVEIT.

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. . . . Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”

Until you are able to find reliable sources to back up your claims about dates, you should not be adding unsourced dates into infoboxes.

In particular, you should not be engaging in this sort of behavior at this point because multiple people have already been involved in discussions with you about your addition of unsourced material to infoboxes at Talk:Moses, including myself, User:Doug Weller, User:PaleoNeonate, and User:PiCo. See also the “Infobox vs. Article” section and ensuing discussion at Talk:Abraham.

The addition of this kind of material is a violation of Wikipedia policy, it goes against the consensus of editors every time it is discussed, and it’s all going to get removed sooner or later. Please don’t keep creating work for other editors by adding unsourced contentious content. Alephb (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll also point out that only exceptionally should material be in an infobox that isn't in the article. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Stremilche) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Stremilche, BedrockPerson!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Can you please add your sources?

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Shchurovichi) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Shchurovichi, BedrockPerson!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

All articles must have references, and the WP:BURDEN is on the creator to add them. Thanks for creating these articles, they will be very useful, but they do need sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

goatse.cx

See Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive_5#A_reputable_news_site_says_.5Bredacted.5D_is_indeed_the_goatse_man for why I reverted you on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Jagielnica, Chortkiv Raion) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jagielnica, Chortkiv Raion, BedrockPerson!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this. Can you please move your sources inline so readers can see where each bit came from? If it's not done at this stage, the article will end up perma-tagged and no one else is likely to be able to change it easily.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Wilhelm Stein) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Wilhelm Stein, BedrockPerson!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Can you please add your sources? If it is a translation from the German Wikipedia, then that can be given attribution.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Alexander Haindorf) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Alexander Haindorf, BedrockPerson!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your sources

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck

Why do you keep uploading poor-quality images of yourself that you've taken with a mobile-phone camera? Seems like you're obsessed with having other people look at the inside of your body. It's disruptive to Wikipedia, and also a disgusting habit that no one wants to see. 58.7.108.178 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@58.7.108.178: Well thankfully you are not the one who determines what is disruptive and what isn't, because my edits are not at all disruptive and in fact add pertinent information to the article. You on the other hand have been extraordinarily rude to me and yourself have actually made disruptive edits. So, my suggestion is you cut it out before I report you for edit warring and disrespect and your IP range is blocked. Sound good? Sounds good. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BedrockPerson, I've made an entry on the talk page for Mouth ulcer regarding your picture. Rather than continually reverting its removal, it would be better to make a good argument for it there to reach a consensus with other page editors. AntiVan (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Reminder About Minor Edits

Hello, BedrockerUser.

Recently on Twelve Tribes of Israel, you added [3] and then removed [4] an infobox, containing information not found elsewhere in the article. There's nothing wrong with adding or removing an infobox per se, but I noticed that you ticked the "this is a minor edit" box in both cases instead of giving an edit summary. This is bad practice on Wikipedia, and can appear deceitful to other uses. The "minor edit" feature is designed to signal to other editors when your edit is only superficial and makes no change to the meaning of the article.

You can find the Wikipedia page about minor edits at WP:MINOR, which states in part:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. . . . . Any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not" is not a minor edit."

Because infoboxes are a frequent subject of dispute, as you well know by now, the addition or removal of unsourced material in an infobox is not properly a "minor" edit. Alephb (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm Joren. Your recent edit to the page Rabbi Akiva appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The source appears to state that he was martyred in 132. If the 135 date has better citations to support it, then please provide those citations. Thank you :) -- Joren (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Thanks for opening a discussion, but please don't misrepresent what other editors do, as you did here. If you would like further discussion or don't understand reasons given, you can ask about that simply ("Would you please explain further why you removed these references?), without writing things like "without consensus" or "without really saying why" which are not relevant and just pour sand in the gears of getting things done. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:OrigtempleNCRT.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:OrigtempleNCRT.jpg, which you've attributed to estate of Clifford Herrick. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material in Infoboxes, Again

As you've been told more than once by myself and User:Doug Weller (see here: [5] and [6]), you shouldn't keep adding unsourced dates to infoboxes about biblical characters, as you recently did to Samuel and Habakkuk. According to WP:INFOBOX all material found in an infobox should be already found in the article. Please refrain from adding unsourced dates in the future. Alephb (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alephb: Habakkuk:

"Chaldean rise to power is dated circa 612 BC, it is assumed he was active about that time, making him an early contemporary of Jeremiah and Zephaniah"

"The Book of Habakkuk is the eighth book of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew Bible. It is attributed to the prophet Habakkuk, and was probably composed in the late 7th century BC."

So, that's self explanatory.

Samuel:

"He was thus on the cusp of two eras. According to the text of the Books of Samuel, he also anointed the first two kings of the Kingdom of Israel: Saul (1050 BC) and David. (1010 BC)"

"According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, Samuel was about 11 years old."

"Samuel died and was buried in Ramah. According to classical rabbinical sources, this was at the age of fifty-two."

So, Saul was anointed ~1050 BC according to Albright, and David ~1010 BC. So, uncited? Unsourced? Nope.

BedrockPerson (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are for uncontroversial, simple facts. It is not clear if Samuel even existed, much less when he might have lived. Those dates are not appropriate for an infobox. Likewise traditional burial place. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims you're making are not sourced in the articles. When it comes to Habakkuk, if you wish to claim that he died in the 7th century, you need a source that says he died in the seventh century. Saying that he wrote a book around 612 does not prove that he kicked the bucket within the next twelve years. Jacob Neusner, for example, wrote A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai in 1962, but, believe it or not, did not die before 1974. In fact, he made it all the way to 2016.

As for Samuel, try and think about the claim you're making here. You're mixing and matching one detail from the traditional rabbinic chronology -- which would place the accession of king David in the ninth century and give Saul only a two-year reign according to Seder Olam, with a claim from Albright, which would place Saul in the eleventh-century and give him 40 years.

What's worse, the article does not have any citation to Albright, or any citation for the claim that Samuel lived fifty-two years. So you're mixing and matching from uncited sources that contradict each other. If you want to claim dates, you need a cited source that directly supports your claim. None of this WP:OR or WP:RS business will cut it.

The issue is simple. If you want to add dates to infoboxes, find sources, cite those sources in the article, and find sources that directly support your claim, rather than mixing and matching from incompatible timelines to produce your numbers. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. Alephb (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alephb: Fair enough. BedrockPerson (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You are heading swiftly for a TBAN. Start using the talk page.

Your recent editing history at Samuel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Investigation

A case involving you is currently being discussed at WP:SPI -- [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at David shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

July 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samaritanism into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Text was copied into Draft:Samaritanism. /wiae /tlk 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abimelech (Judges)

Hello, I have reverted some of your most recent edits on Abimelech (Judges). My reason is the excessive use of religious texts as a source. Though it wasn't entirely you, you have a common practice of using the Bible as a source which is fine, but too much and editors and readers will question the reliability and neutrality of the content associated with the source via WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If you had added biblical verses as your primary source years ago, it would have been accepted as the norm. for sourcing biblical related topics and content. However, over the years, editors have been implementing their own personal research through this style of sourcing, which has caused so many disputes and blocks to the point where the Wikipedia community had to update the policies and guidelines in more detail. Im not trying to discourage you from editing, I'm trying to keep you from doing something that could get you into trouble. Here is policy dealing with Islamic related articles: WP:MOSISLAM and a nutshell dealing with religious sourcing overall: WP:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. (This message has or will be sent to another editor also.) Happy editing and Cheers! — 04:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alephb (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:HERE, unsourced edit disruption. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

@Dennis Brown: because why not, I've been trying to edit my userpage for like a week and Wiki's been ignoring my messages. How do I remedy this? BedrockPerson (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Samaritanism

Hello, BedrockPerson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Samaritanism".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Samaritanism has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Samaritanism. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of founders of religious traditions/historicity

Hello, BedrockPerson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "historicity".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Legacypac (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion pending for File:OrigtempleNCRT.jpg

Hello, BedrockPerson. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:OrigtempleNCRT.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Occupied Palestine Resolution

Draft:Occupied Palestine Resolution, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Occupied Palestine Resolution and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Occupied Palestine Resolution during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thinking about you

keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.159.140 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

@RoySmith: if you've blocked User:47.20.177.163 for one month, and User:Zhomron continues to edit despite that, does that mean they are a sock evading a block? Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]