User talk:Protostan

Warnings[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

February 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Moby. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Skier Dude (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Abraham Lincoln, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. faithless (^speak) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

I have again restored the changes you made to the article. Your edit summary of "doesn't fit" tells me nothing about why you made the changes. The paragraph regarding the DOI and Lincoln' relationship to it that you omitted is relevant, and the word changes you made elsewhere may reflect YOUR feelings on the subject but they do not reflect the valid opiions of the reliable sources quoted.

You need to make the case for the changes on the article's discussion page and obtain agreement from a consensus of editors to eliminate or modify this properly sourced section of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the article to a more POV free state.

FTR It looks like you're the only editor who disagrees with my work on Abe.

--Protostan (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV issue -- the sources are consistent with the existing langage. Have you read any of them? If you have SOURCED information that says something different, add it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Abraham Lincoln. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research[edit]

Please remember that when you add information to articles it needs to be sourced. Inferences - especially regarding religious faith - are not permitted. You can find additional information about this subject here. Rklawton (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Abraham Lincoln, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

In the 19th century, even more than in this one, it was vital for a public figure to pay lip service to religion, and specifically to the Christian faith. To go from a public statement like the Bible one you relied upon, to assertions as to his actual beliefs, is still original research. Please don't start this up again. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike is right. This issue has been addressed numerous times. If you have new information, perhaps some recently uncovered an authenticated letter, then that's great. Otherwise, I suggest moving on to another topic. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike has engaged in original research. --Protostan (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009[edit]

Per WP:BRD, please discuss your recent changes to Barak Obama before making the change again. There is a section on the talk page in a discussion has begun, referring to existing consensus with respect to both the removal of redundant categories (as the category for United Church of Christ is still in the article), and the retention of that category. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The edit(s) in question are as follows: [1] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are also engaged in an edit war at Barack Obama (see comment by User:4wajzkd02 above). Please discuss your position at Talk:Barack Obama; note that one more revert will result in a WP:3RR block. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and UCC and Protestant categories[edit]

Hi Protostan. Regarding this edit summary, I think it reflects a misconception about Wikipedia's category scheme. Unlike information that is in the body of the article, categories reflect someone's membership in various organizations throughout their life. That's why Obama is still in categories for, for example, Illinois Senators and U-Chicago Law faculty. Although he is obviously no longer either, the categories remain. As to the Protestant category, WP:DUPCAT documents the community's norms on subcats. I don't know whether you're right about having the Protestant category or not, but I'd suggest you engage in discussion here on that issue. Cheers.--chaser (away) - talk 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Anders Behring Breivik. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Paul Harvey. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Irn (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Loughner and atheism[edit]

WP:BLPCAT is entirely clear on this issue. Your edit is a violation of BLP policy, and as such can be reverted without regard to WP:3RR. If you don't self revert, and discuss this on talk, I may raise this issue elsewhere, along with your ridiculous attempts to label Loughner as an 'Atheist Philosopher' [2], which to me looks little better than vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of James B. Morehead[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on James B. Morehead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Bagheera (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias on Jordan codices article[edit]

Thanks for your query! I've responded to your concern on the talk page. Let me know what you think! Roger Pearse (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Behring Breivik[edit]

Unfortunately he's explicitly stated that he is a protestant Christian in his 'manifesto' and there's no realistic chance that these are not his words; it's also tied to his actions by the BBC article, and he identifies as a 'Knights Templar' which again is another Christian thing.

I think most people would not consider his repellant actions Christian, but the references state that he is nevertheless of Christian beliefs.Teapeat (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing the effort you put forth to connect Jared Lee Loughner to atheism, while trying to disconnect Anders Breivik and this attack from Christianity. Just something I noticed. Also, in the case of his manifesto, it's an acceptable source under WP:ABOUTSELF. Swarm 00:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just making an observation about what looks like inappropriate editing behavior. Please work to adhere to WP:NPOV to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks, Swarm 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that your actions on the Breivik page is in contrast with your previous actions on the Loughner page. Swarm 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik christian terrorism[edit]

Please do not remove the category Christian terrorism, there are several sections discussing it on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. If you disagree, go discuss it there. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit removing the category, the consensus on the talk page is that it should be included. Discuss it, don't edit war about it because you disagree with it's inclusion. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Basil's Cathedral[edit]

I understand you might have certain religious convictions that make you feel strongly about this, but words like "stolen" and "victim" are one-sided. Even my replacement term, "seized", is non-neutral, as "seizure" of property by government entities is typically viewed unfavorably and often implies inappropriate action.

My own opinion is that the Soviets were probably right to seize some church property, as organized religion can be a corrupting influence on society. History shows that religious organizations are not free of corruption. However, even though I hold this to be true, you'll notice that I don't go around editing the article on St. Basil's to make sure this view is reflected in the article, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox; I feel that the correct tone for an encyclopedia is to be fact-based and not reflect my personal opinions. 71.35.175.150 (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Breivik infobox[edit]

I've noted that you took exception to Christianity being included in the infobox but didn't address the issue on the talk page. I'd suggest you express your opinion to exclude it in the straw poll there. Editors in support of it are reverting deletion of his religion asserting that they have a consensus to include it. I don't think they do, I just think those who oppose it have not voiced their opinions on the talk page. Mamalujo (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Breivik infobox[edit]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY isn't a justification to ignore consensus. I suggest you revert this [3] before you get reported for edit warring, and blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain[edit]

That is still false correlation. You are trying to imply that Mark Twain's criticism of religion caused his depression. That goes against WP:NPOV and is clearly because of your bias, given your editing history. Find a more accessible source please, instead of one you seem to have googled in seconds. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around[edit]

"You are trying to imply that Mark Twain's criticism of religion caused his depression."

NO He was suffered from manic episodes some of which were so bad he not only denied God existed but denied he (Twain) existed. --Protostan (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Mark Twain, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AstroCog (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mark Twain shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please 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 a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Just a heads up, especially in case you are not aware of Wikipedia's 3RR or other policies regarding edit warring. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Von Restorff (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Von Restorff (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stephen Hawking. When removing content, 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 content 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. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela[edit]

Hi Protostan. Although your total edit count is still low, you've been editing Wikipedia long enough that I'm not going to dump templates on your talk page. Instead, I hope you'll accept a friendly reminder from a disinterested editor that this edit summary can be construed as a personal attack on other Wikipedians, and that's not cool. I see you've opened a discussion at Talk:Nelson Mandela instead of edit warring, and that is cool. If you have a reliable source for the Methodism claim, I doubt that anyone will seriously oppose its being added. Rivertorch (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Marxists[edit]

Category:Former Marxists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]