User talk:Maiorem

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Eliseo Soriano, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliseo Soriano

Excuse me, but Soriano was indeed mentioned at least twice in the first citation as "SORIANO, ELISEO, F.". The first was to submit his name for "study and recommendation on [his] certificates of candidacy" since he did vie for the position of Senator, as entry no. 78. He was mentioned a second time under the section: "4. To CANCEL/DENY due course to the certificates of candidacy of the following independent candidates:" Maiorem (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see it and still see the cites as primary reports and your addition as primary reporting, if it is notable it will have been reported in an independant WP:RS, if not then we don't do WP:OR and primary reporting, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cite is taken from the Official Website of the Commission on Elections, Republic of the Philippines.Maiorem (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right a primary cite. Off2riorob (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what do you mean by "primary cite"? Maiorem (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't report primary records we report what independent reliable citations have said about it, the article is a WP:BLP and gets more than enough negative attack additions from the opposing church and his enemies, please use the highest quality independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source can still be used as it is stated "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" with the caution "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources) Maiorem (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2005

Over five years ago, nothing happening did it, there was no case, it came to nothing did it? Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing came of this did it? Some of his opponents filed and that was it, did anything come of it? If nothing came of it it is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable is that such a charge was filed against him in the first place. Maiorem (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maiorem. You have new messages at Talk:William_Lane_Craig.
Message added 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on William Lane Craig

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on William Lane Craig. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice.

Please read WP:BRD. The material proposed (a reference to youtube) has been contested. The appropriate avenue is not to re-revert it back in. Please use the article talk page for discussion, instead of edit warring. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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. Swarm ^X 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]