User talk:Puritan27

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from William III of England. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Accurizer (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello. Some of your recent to Dutch Revolt, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Objections have been raised about your rather one-sided editing with unsourced material distorting the article with religious bias. Please restore to the original version and engage in te discussion on the Talk page. Thank you ... DonCalo (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dutch Revolt. 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. Favonian (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and theological background to the Dutch Revolt

The additions that I have made to the article on the Dutch Revolt are common knowledge in advanced levels of Reformation history, as I teach the subject at a Master's and Seminary level. I tried to be brief by including the most important reformers involved and the documents used to promote the Dutch Revolt. To leave them out is absurd. The article, without my brief additions, was terribly weak and superficial, and without proper context to the Reformation. There are a significant number of other additions that could be made in the future, as the article showed beforehand a mere high-school level of understanding of the Dutch Revolt. With my additions, there are now also links to the biographical articles, the Confessional documents, and to the larger context of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Thanks

The consensus is that the level of detail of your additions it not fitting the lead section, which should provide a concise summary of the topic, and should be removed from that section. Whether it fits the larger body text is another issue and is open for discussion. However, take care that any addition you propose for the body text should be neutral (also religiously neutral) and backed by reliable sourcing as common knowledge is not a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or try to make a separate article about the Theological background to the Dutch Revolt or something with a similar name. Your additions may contribute to a better encyclopedia, but please do it at the right location. And as Arnoutf says: please take care that any addition you propose for the body text should be neutral (also religiously neutral) and backed by reliable sourcing. All the best, kind regards and good luck,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, I'm DonCalo. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:DonCalo#The_Dutch_Revolt that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refrain from personal attacks. DonCalo (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Puritans under King Charles I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Elizabeth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Orphan Wiki. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to History of the Puritans under King James I seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Orphan Wiki 19:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Puritan27, are you planning to add WP:RELIABLE sources to support your many edits, or shall we assume you're relying on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it can all be removed by other editors? Please respond. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:9D3F:6C9B:6798:2BB0 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Puritan27, I second that request. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits ...

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to History of the Puritans under King James I. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to History of the Puritans under King James I, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Melcous, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This edit: I don't know who you were talking to, but you've been leaving similar remarks to editors in various places. The level of arrogance and uncollegiality is totally inappropriate in a collaborative project, and it is coupled by an obvious lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it operates. What I see here is a page full of comments by other editors left over a period of a half a year, and the only kind of communication you offer is this kind (a remark similar to the ones you are leaving now, but a half a year ago to DonCalo), full of personal attacks and snide remarks.

I see no talk page communication, no edit summaries--nothing that indicates that you even understand that this is a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has now been extended to an indefinite period of time due to the creation of additional sock puppet accounts such as User:Austin61. You will need to appeal your block before you'll be allowed to edit Wikipedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]