User talk:Ghostprotocol888

Welcome!

Hello, Ghostprotocol888, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 01:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
Free subscription to our informative newsletter
Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Join today!

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Christianity, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ghostprotocol888. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe 1992 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ghostprotocol888. You have new messages at Dylanstaley's talk page.
Message added 05:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

9th amendment

Hi there, I've responded to your comments on my talk page here. Thanks, --CapitalR (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion at the talk page. Please add to it there. Note that generally consensus should be reached before re-adding contentious material. --CapitalR (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

I removed your phone number from my talk page as that is a very public location and I don't want anyone that you didn't intend to have it to get a hold of it. The best way to contact me would be through email, mainly because it's currently 1:30AM where I'm located and I'm about to head off to bed soon. You can shoot me an email by clicking here and solving the captcha. This is just to protect my email from being spammed from bots that crawl wikipedia for email addresses. Dylanstaley (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Article

Jesus' CommandmentJesus' command is To love God like you love yourself and to love your neighbor like you love yourself. The two are joined in that God is love. His command establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments. -Catechism of the Catholic Church 202, 2196, 214-

Hi Ghostprotocol888, I think you can improve this section you've recently added to the Christianity page by

using quote marks to show which text is being cited
put the source in refrences at the bottom
You could quote Matt 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28 and also Deut 6:4 and Lev 19:18
Also it may be more appropriate to have this section after 10 commandments rather than before it? What do you think?

Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Hello Jainsworth16, thanks for your message. I agree with you that I could improve the section, but I would like for other people to do that. I did put the sources at the bottom in references, as being the Bible. I learned in school that any Bible is fine to reference, although I am not sure if I agree with that. I actually think that Jesus' Commandment should be before the 10 Commandment section because in my opinion Jesus' Command introduces the 10 Commandment section due to Jesus' Commandment establishing a connection to all ten commandments, evidenced by Matt 22:40, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Thanks again.Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting me

It'll be interesting if you do, considering the situation has been explained to you by 4 different people on 4 separate occasions and you, and no one else, have violated the three revert rule. I was trying to help by offering the suggestion that you take your changes to the talk page first and discuss them. If you don't want my help, that's your problem.Farsight001 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC) No, no, no. I do want your help, but your reasoning for reversion seems meaningless in my opinion because you still have not explained it. Now you are trying to say that I have broken a rule for trying to stop your reversions. My position is that there is no way that I am at fault for what I am guessing is edit warring with you but you were the one who initiated contact to my addition to the Christianity after I made it. Yet, I still do not have your reasoning. You deleted my post, and I asked you why, but I don't know your reasoning. You have 3 posts on the Christianity page in the last month. The first gives no reasoning. The second shows your reasoning as edit warring with user; I mean that right there is I'm guessing a violation policy according to your explanation as such. Your third edit shows that your reasoning is not backed by policy but I am going to get banned.Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think is going on here, then I highly suggest you go back and re-read several policies again.Farsight001 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been. I still don't understand your position. Please cite exact policy (your position or reasoning for reversion).Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Without commenting one way or another as to whether the content you are seeking to add to the Christianity article is appropriate to that article, I want to provide some insight into why it cannot remain in the form you added it. A core policy of Wikipedia is that articles must not contain original research. Your addition was that Jesus' commandment "To love God like you love yourself..." (which can be sourced to biblical text) "...establishes a logical and causal connection to all ten commandments" (which is not sourced to a reliable source) is original research. If you are able to source the command, and source the statement that that comand establishes that connection, then your addition will then meet content guidelines (and policy). That will still leave the question of what article to add it to, and where in that article to add it.

Regarding revision and edit warring, please see the three-revert rule.

Thanks, and Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Fæ (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Christianity. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to 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.

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. Fæ (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, by-passing a current block by using an anonymous IP address is a failure to comply with the Sock puppetry policy and may itself lead to further blocks. Please do not be tempted to do this. If you have something to say in relation to your block or any other issues, please raise them here on your talk page until your block expires. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Christianity. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to 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.

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. Fæ (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a block expire and then returning to precisely the same behaviour with the same changes is disruptive for other editors. Please take some time out and review the related policies. Where I am it is quite a nice sunny weekend, so I'm going to do a bit of gardening away from the keyboard. I can recommend it as a way to give yourself some space and reconsider your approach to the problem you see in the article. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 14 April 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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not edit warring. There is an In-text attribution citation. Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, you were using Wikipedia to proselytize; second, we don't do text attribution that way. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 14 April 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.

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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am and was using wikipedia to improve the Christianity article. "The Son of God," is the source and, "commands" is the inline citation which textually attributes the quote, "that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." "Inline citation means any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it." WP:IC A valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes was used, further citation is unneeded. WP:IC Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Our edit warring policy is very simple: you must not edit war, even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 18:05, 14 April 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.

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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You have only presented allegation of edit warring without citing valid policy. The position blocking this account violates Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. WP:BLOCK "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." WP:WAR Material in the Main namespace is content. WP:CONTENT "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute." WP:BLOCK Fæ disputed content in the Christianity article before blocking user. Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can wikilawyer as much as you like, but the fact remains that you were edit warring. Considering (1) that you came back from a block for edit warring and immediately proceeded to continue to edit war on the same article, and (2) that your edits were a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, the only thing about your block that might be open to doubt is that it is so short. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 14 April 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.

Reverting obviously-disruptive edits is 3RR exempt. Proselytizing certainly counts. We're here to be an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; the only time I touched the article was after Ghostprotocol888 inserted similar text in the article nine times, in what the article history shows is extended edit warring. I believe the only comments I have made in edit comments or on the article talk page relate to pointing out the policies related to the edit warring rather than any comment about whether the changes Ghostprotocol888 would like to see are correct or not. I do not consider that a tangible "content dispute" but as Ghostprotocol888 thinks it might be, then I am happy to recuse myself of any further administrative actions and leave it to others to determine what to do next or what advice to provide. Checking through the last 1,000 edits in the article history, I cannot see myself ever having taken any position on its content as I have not previously made any edit to the article. Good luck. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 14 April 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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You have presented allegation, non fact, without citing valid policy. The position blocking this account violates Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute." WP:BLOCK "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." WP:WAR Material in the Main namespace is content. WP:CONTENT Fæ disputed content in the Christianity article before blocking user. User Fæ's block is invalid and must be unblocked, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, Fæ was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking. Consensus was previously made on the talk page. Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were obviously edit warring, and repeatedly labeling good-faith reversions of your edits as 'vandalism' ([1], [2], [3]) was totally unhelpful. As explained above, Fæ was obviously not 'involved' as his interventions were limited to his role as an administrator. The fact that you're continuing to deny that you were edit warring and are still attacking Fæ gives me no confidence at all that you'll edit productively when this block expires - you appear to have a battleground mentality. As such, I am extending the block's duration to indefinite. Please note that this is not a permanent block, but rather a block which will remain in force only until you provide a convincing explanation of how you will work in collaboration with other editors in the future. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 15 April 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.

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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common." Nick-D, "was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking." WP:BLOCK The first sentence of Nick-D's Decline reason is opinion. "The Allegations that are being made against the posting of Jesus' Command are non fact based. They are not based on valid policy, due to the misinterpretation of wikipedia policies by other(s) opposing. In compliance with all wikipedia policy, an addition to the Christianity article was made -WP:CON-WP:VERIFY-. Blanking, illegitamate Vandalism has occured, where significant parts of a page's content is removed without any valid reason -WP:VAND-. View Article's history, the orginal edit by Ghostprotocol888 was removed without valid reasoning; there is a not valid claim of WP:OR on the first reversion; the original edit by Ghostprotocol888 meets wikipedia's verifiability requirements: At the time of the original edit, it was previously unchallenged and attributable to the article -WP:OR-WP:VERIFY-. Custom dictates that, "in most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute" -WP:CON-. After the original edit by Ghostprotocol888, a reversion was made claiming WP:OR invalidly. Technically, this inavalid reversion and all further invalid reversions is Vandalism. The proper course of action is to create a talk page post, without invalid reversion (vandalism), or to engage revision of the original edit -WP:CON-. The actual course of action taken was making invalid reversion claiming WP:OR, a form of Vandalsim." Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 8:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring and now you're wasting time making frivolous unblock requests. Consider applying to law school instead of attempting further requests if you do not intend to address the reason for your block. Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:09, 15 April 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.

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).

Ghostprotocol888 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"There is no limit to the number of unblock requests that a user may issue." WP:BLOCK Please stop accusing me of edit warring without actual proof. I was not edit warring. "3RR exemption: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." WP:WAR I was reverting "blanking," where significant parts of a page's content is removed without any valid reason WP:VAND I was and am editing. Please do not Decline this appeal by claiming that reverting blanking is not exempted from the 3RR, every well-intentioned user agrees blanking is Obvious Vandalism. Please do not Decline this appeal because the reversion of the original post claims WP:OR. "The term "original research" WP:OR is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] ...Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy — so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.[1]" WP:OR The edit I made is attributable to the article. "If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." WP:CON So, I was easily not edit warring because I made a compromise that addressed the reverting editors concerns in the edit summary. Frivolously prolonging this block is a waste of time. I had addressed the reason for this block: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute." WP:BLOCK Ghostprotocol888 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Due to your persistent refusal to discuss your own actions and insistence on isulting other people by labelling their valid edits as vandalism, your privilege to post to this page has been revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 08:29, 15 April 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]