User talk:Adasegogisdi

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasegogisdi (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Adasegogisdi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jesus Christ the Father, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Etimena 22:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jesus Christ the Father[edit]

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Etimena 22:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jesus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jesus Christ the Father with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. –Gladamas^talk 21:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad, wrong template... --Adasegogisdi (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Jesus appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Jesus, but we cannot accept original research. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia purposes the Bible isn't a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jesus Christ the Father for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesus Christ the Father is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ the Father until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FyzixFighter (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Jesus. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jesus. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jesus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Jesus, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jesus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jesus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Adasegogisdi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate. Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reread Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and stop blaming others! Favonian (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Newer editor assistance[edit]

We have a group of pages set up at Wikipedia:Teahouse where older, more established editors can help newer editors in some of the difficulties they might face in dealing with all of our policies and guidelines here and other editors and anything else that might come up. When the block is expired, you might want to drop by over there and see if the others there might be able to offer you some constructive help. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

Frankly I don't know how much chance you have of coming back considered your continued accusations of racism let alone white supremacism. But in case you do, as mention here [1] do note we intentionally limit intepretation of primary sources, so arguments about what a primary source says are often not particularly useful. As for secondary sources, one is "About Oneness Pentecostalism" and the other is "Apologetics is an essential part of evangelism" or "Evangelistic church planting is the core focus of your North American Mission Board". Neither are particularly useful as secondary sources except perhaps relating to the views of Oneness Pentecostalism or the North American Mission Board. But it's easily possible these views are not significant enough to be covered in a broad based article like Jesus Christ and even if they were they definitely shouldn't be presented as the main views based on those sources. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016 continued[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jesus, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again for continued edit warring with charges of racism. This cannot go on. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Adasegogisdi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Continue to be banned from Wikipedia for adding racially accurate pictures of Jesus. "American Racism (sigh)" Adasegogisdi (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, you were blocked because of your insults and your edit warring. In addition, you seem to be wholly unaware of our policy that we cite reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latter, please read WP:RS. I've commented in favor of you earlier, because I know what an incredible mess of conflicting opinions and academic positions that the topic of Jesus is. For all I know, there may well be some sources meeting our reliability criteria which supports your position. If you can produce such sources, then there would, certainly, be grounds for introducing that matter on the article talk page to propose changes based on those sources. If you cannot or will not produce such sources, however, and you continue to engage in similar editing, I have every reason to believe your ability to edit may be dramatically curtailed. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cryptozoology Emergency[edit]

Just thought I'd give everyone that's a member of WikiProject Cryprozoology a heads up. I've been seeing a lot of that looks like vandalism by Bloodoffox, removing cryptozoology categories and rewording things to appear as though article topics are on mythological creatures. I believe this is an attempt to get his merger proposal for List of Cryptids merged with List of mythological creatures although I cannot be sure. You might want to give your input here--Paleface Jack 02:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)