User talk:FrJosephSuaiden

Criticism sections not best practice, per policy

Please see WP:CSECTION, "Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information - positive and negative - within that section." - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had no idea diet could be so controversial! FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Biennial and Grace. 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) 09:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you man!

Im Dfrr Lets get to know each other. Dfrr (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is moved

Please discuss at Talk:Pescetarianism and not on my user talk page. Discussions about improving the article are not appropriate for individual user talk pages. If you wish to discuss my behavior, then you can do it there, but you are discussing the article content, and that belongs on the article talk page. That is why I have reverted your edit. Elizium23 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pescetarianism. 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 discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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. Elizium23 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except you're still factually wrong and I can demonstrate religious agenda as opposed to factual accuracy. We could take it further up the chain if you'd like.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would welcome you to "go further up the chain". You need to stop edit warring, even if you think you are right. Elizium23 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to go find a source for a 40-day fast on the Melkite page. Because there isn't one. Saying "well it's Eastern so we do it too" is kinda worthless. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that the discussion has been moved to Talk:Pescetarianism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You put this on my talk page. I'll be glad to repeat myself there.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is about your behavior, not about the content dispute. Your behavior is unacceptable, as I am sure you will find out when you go further up the chain. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that?

"It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions. "The five pillars of Wikipedia" cover this approach and are recommended reading before editing. (Vandals are reported via the Administrator Notice Board and may be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia.)"

NPOV stands for "neutral point of view." Let's go up the chain, then.FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if this is the hill you wish to die on, then I'll happily field your complaints in whatever venue you think is appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your confidence in an unciteable claim is impressive. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Pescetarianism, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that I misused the "minor edit" (my last one was the addition of a parenthesis). I will try harder in the future. FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suaiden. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:FrJosephSuaiden. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from the editor who put me under a sockpuppet investigation because you couldn't admit error (which other editors also called you out on) on the Pescetarianism article. First you tried to out me, then claim conflict of interest, then falsely accuse me of sockpuppetry. Who are you kidding? FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SealMetropolia.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SealMetropolia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palladiusrudenko.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palladiusrudenko.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]