User talk:WarBishop

February 2024

Hello, I'm Synorem. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Synorem (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m attempting to correct the page and remove unsupported statements. Are you a member of the LDS church? WarBishop (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Primary accounts are not sources. Please provide reliable sources before removing statements. Broc (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reliable source. Are you a member of the LDS church? WarBishop (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), you may be blocked from editing. Shadow311 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)== Edit Warring ==[reply]

I am a senior clergy of this church and correcting errors on this page. Are you a member of the LDS church? WarBishop (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 has blocked me after resolution? WarBishop (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WarBishop! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 15:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WarBishop! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is vandalism by another denomination WarBishop (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, WarBishop. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in what way did I advertise publicize or promote anyone or anything that is not permitted? Again are you a member of the LDS church? WarBishop (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’m literally posting the sources in the change.

https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/the-book-of-mormon/book-of-mormon-witnesses/

U.S. postal records from two cities along the mail route confirm that a letter was in fact mailed to Strang from Nauvoo.

Lucy Smith (Joseph’s mother) wrote a letter on May 11, 1846 upholding James Strang as a prophet, while Emma Smith testified that Joseph held a council of trusted advisors before penning a letter to Strang. WarBishop (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't respond here--respond at that noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By and by, mormonstories.org is not considered a RS on most topics.--VViking_TalkEdits 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and where is the source for the critics? WarBishop (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been resolved. Please remove the block. It was agreed to remove unsupported opinion statements, while I acquire the links for any new information. WarBishop (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Bbb23? WarBishop (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been appealed WarBishop (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such agreement. The source you used was deemed unusable by two editors. You edit warred in the article, you misrepresented the conflict, you denied having a COI when it is abundantly clear that you do (of course a senior clergy member of a church has a conflict of interest with that church--denying that beggars belief), and you attacked other editors in a really weird way--by "accusing" them of being of some LDS denomination. (I put that in scare quotes because it makes no sense.) Then there's the filter, which is truly a thing to behold. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I’m new. Are you personally offended or something? Sincerest apologies indeed WarBishop (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is against policy, undisclosed COIs are against policy. Personal attacks are blatantly against policy. I'm sure you can see how this isn't personal if you bother to look. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t any of you idiots actually assist someone to make the edits correctly. Even if you aren’t gatekeeping, you are in fact gatekeeping WarBishop (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you post another personal attack on one or more editors then please expect to have your ability to edit this talk page removed. JBW (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]