User talk:23.242.207.48

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia (Tutorial)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utilize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Misunderstandings of p-values page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bonferroni correction. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I see this is not the first time that you have been warned of editwarring. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DTS
From a comment on Wuerzele's talk page: "Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people."

January 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Historical Jesus, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary goading
Hi Jeppiz. Maybe try arguing issues, instead of posting threats and accusations on talk pages? Just a suggestion.

Source?

Richard Carrier argues against a historical Jesus. Might be a good source of info. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Kim Burrell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kim Burrell. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. Thank you. Jack1956 (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jack1956! That's good advice. I suggest you follow it. :) 23.242.207.48 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg

And what if someone wants to know whether the chicken egg came first? There's no reason to remove good content. Laurdecl ^talk 06:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The expression is "chicken or egg," not "chicken or chicken egg." But more importantly, the source you cited is a blog that is based completely on a YouTube video. Not only is that not a good source, the video doesn't even agree with your argument! In fact, the video says the issue of whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first is simply a matter of linguistics that depends entirely on whether you define "chicken egg" as the type of egg laid by chickens or as the type of egg that chickens lay. The video then ends by unequivocally stating that the "egg" came first. 23.242.207.48 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---