User talk:Nate5713

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Nate5713, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Trojan genealogy of Nennius appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. you removed the word mythical here [1] - they are clearly mythical Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory?[edit]

You wrote on my talk page:

I found your derogatory term related to creationists quite personally offensive. Creationism is a hobby of mine starting from the first verse in the Bible. Nate5713 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was not meant personally. I'm sorry if you were offended, but I stand by the truth of it. I long ago grew tired of having to explain to skeptics that not all Christians are kooks who insist that every detail of the Bible is factually accurate. I tend to lose my patience with uninformed rants like those you've been putting on the Easter talk page lately. The fact that readers of your commnents have a hard time figuring out if you're serious or are just trying to get a rise out of folks by posting ridiculous ideas should tell you something. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm hoping this was a joke?

Quit meddling in my affairs!

I was just about to undeniably prove that Resurrection Day originated from the anointed Son of God, and not some Greek sex goddess. and I would have gotten away with too, if wasn't for you meddling Kid! Nate5713 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using two accounts[edit]

Our policy at WP:SOCK says registered editors should only use one account. Nate2357 is obviously an account of yours, and with your permission I will block it. I'm asking for permission because I am involved with your edits. If you don't want me to block it, I shall raise it at WP:ANI and ask someone else to block it, because obviously it's confusing to other editors and is against our policy. Note that I've changed genealogy article so that it no longer comments on Nennius's historical value, by the way. I also think it may need a new title. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.[edit]

See my reply to your post on my talk page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And see my further reply to your reply on my talk page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another reply... I'm getting tired of this. You're being silly, and I won't take you seriously any more. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Universe. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Okay, I've made an effort to explain why the consensus etymology exists though it seems so outlandish to you, and why your proposed etymology seems so outlandish to the rest of us. Back to the article talk page! -Ben (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Please do not attempt to archive article talk pages yourself. This process is done automatically and on a set schedule. By trying to do this yourself, you disrupt the automated process. Rklawton (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preexistence of Christ[edit]

Unfortunately a list of Bible verses with POV comment is counted as OR, so your list of verses moved back to Talk:Pre-existence of Christ. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Genealogy of Jesus. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Please don't use articles in a way that appears to promote a commercial company (which isn't a reliable source either by our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Spoon are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Usb10 ^Connected? 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyvio[edit]

Please note that your edits adding material from the Good Things poster are probably copyvio and don't add the material again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage comments[edit]

I've replied to your comment on my talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancestry of Jesus. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular 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. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your notification to me[edit]

You are not required to notify me that you have responded to my comment. Only the person being reported at AN/I -- you -- is required to be notified by the person initiating the report -- in this case, User:Dougweller.

A word to the wise: it's clear from your behavior and your comments that you really have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works, or what its policies are. If you're interested in sticking around and contributing to the encyclopedia, you're really starting off on entirely the wrong foot. The best thing would be to do a little more listening and a lot less assuming and proclaiming about things you don't understand. Edit quietly and productively and learn how things work and what's expected from the material accepted into our articles, and you'll be fine. Keep on as you are, and I can predict with near certainty that you'll be blocked from editing -- maybe not immediately, but at some point soon.

That's my advice, do with it what you will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Notification[edit]

Please read WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Based on your understanding of those two policies, you will need to correct your behaviour and improve on your statements on WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify something here: using multiple accounts the way that you have been is contrary to the policy on the use of alternate accounts. You must choose one and only one. The other must be blocked. If you continue to edit from both accounts, then both accounts will be blocked. If you choose to create any more accounts, they will be blocked as per WP:EVADE, and your primary account will be blocked indefinitely. Time to start making serious choices. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]