User talk:Brechbill123

Nomination of Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old German Baptist Brethren (New Conference) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mennonite

I reverted your recent addition of a source to the Mennonite article. Thanks for the book information. Would you be good enough to use template:cite book inside a <ref></ref> tag. Include a page number and ideally a quote (it's not a book I'm familiar with). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upper or lower, it needs a reference of the whole paragraph can be removed. Please provide a reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Walter, thanks for the heads-up.Brechbill123 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela

Hi, thanks for your addition regarding the Mandela sabotage charges. I have removed the parts about "as well as lives", and guerilla warfare. My counter-references include the following: Mandela writes that "Strict instrucions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life. But if sabotage did not produce the results we wanted, we were prepared to move on to the next stage: guerilla warfare and terrorism," and "We would dispute the state's central contention that we had embarked on guerilla warfare.... We would deny the claims of murder and damage to innocent bystanders." The judge accepted the argument that they had not taken a decision to engage in guerilla warfare. (Long Walk to Freedom, Chapter 45 paragraph 3, Chapter 56 paragraph 4, and chapter 56 about a page from the end). If you can back up your version, please supply the relevant sentences in the Joffe book. Zaian (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the help.Brechbill123 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Feminism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Do not insult the reader by adding an image of a non-feminist Nazi woman to the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is in a number of other feminism articles, and she is ON TOPIC for feminism in FASCISM which is where she was posted. There is no original research in the thing! She wrote a book and gave thousands of speeches of the topic of feminism. This is the FASCISM section, who would YOU include!

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because you are a banned user using this account to evade your ban. (In addition, your editing has been persistently contentious uncooperative and aggressive for this account to be indefinitely blocked even if it were not a ban-evading sockpuppet account.) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brechbill123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Ana whoever they said I was. I don't know who that is. I have had this account for since at least 2010. I was blocked once last year, probably for good reason. I have been cooperative this year. I put in two edits this year that someone deleted. Then I took both of those questions to the talk page. I was not contentious, aggressive, or uncooperative.

Decline reason:

The quacking here is just too loud: there is an abundance of evidence that you are indeed a ban-evading sockpuppet. I'm revoking talk page access to avoid further frivolous unblock requests and soapboxing; if you have anything you wish to say, you can email WP:ARBCOM. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.