User talk:Approaching

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jordan Howard Sobel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Cartwright and Hyde Park High School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Zionism
That article is covered by a 1RR, please self-revert your last edit or you may be reported and potentially blocked.  nableezy  - 03:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to know that your antagonism isn't reserved for me. :) --Monochrome _ Monitor  03:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would you think it's antagonism? :) BabyJonas (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't think it's mean... constantly threatening to block people?--Monochrome _ Monitor  04:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a punishment for reports that are found to be baseless.--Monochrome _ Monitor  04:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, where did I threaten to block anyone? BabyJonas (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MM is talking about me, and I am not threatening to block anybody. Every article in the Arab-Israeli topic area is covered under a 1 revert rule. All editors are expected to abide by it. That's really all there is to it MM, no antagonism needed. And thank you BabyJonas for self-reverting.  nableezy  - 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did abide by it. You cannot revert an edit made three weeks previously with edits in between. That's simply not how it works.--Monochrome _ Monitor  05:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if that smear on my page be reverted as well. It refers to one edit made at Zionism. One edit cannot be called evidence of edit-warring, and to plunk a unjustified notification of this kind without 'evidence' is to indulge in a personal attack.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't intended as a smear or personal attack, Nishidani. You knew you were reverting to disputed wording in the article that was previously reverted due to problems with consensus. You know that's not right. You have to work with other editors. No hard feelings. I just don't like seeing people's concerns ignored on the talk page. BabyJonas (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horgan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

PZ Myers
Claiming to have an interest in cephalopods is not something that requires a rigorous citation unlike a claim that someone is a murderer for instance. Instead of an outright deletion of information, please try to fix the problem - wp:preserve. Otherwise, please use This generates: See template:citation needed ref wp:preserve (leave out the nowiki stuff) Delete immediately to months per template:cn. Would you please use for your citation on William Lane Craig? Please add the "|ISBN=" field and ISBN. See help:referencing for beginners. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the PZ Myers page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=753817643 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F753817643%7CPZ Myers%5D%5D Ask for help])

Talk:William Lane Craig
Diffs such as this are completely unacceptable. I understand you're getting frustrated; that doesn't give you a license to lash out and belittle others. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback, and I will take it seriously. Can you point me to some specific guidelines on editor conduct? I've been harassed by one or two people on that talk page and I'd like to have a better sense of the guidelines about what is and isn't permissible conduct. Thanks. Approaching (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * To put it bluntly, no, we don't have a good summary of what we expect of user conduct, at least not that I know of. That is remiss of us and when I get some time I'll work to rectify it.  You can find a list of our conduct policies here, but reading them all will be rather a slog.  If I was put on the spot to summarise it all, I'd say something like this:


 * Wikipedia is fundamentally collaborative. That means editing with other editors, not against them.  Seek compromise and consensus, not victory.  Seek to work together with everyone, not only those you agree with.  Don't even put editors into buckets of those you agree with and those you don't.  See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA.
 * Everyone on Wikipedia has biases. Even me.  Biases are human, so biases are allowed, because the only way of having no bias would to be inhuman.  We do ask you to recognise that you have biases and that no article is going to solely reflect your opinion.  Other editors have other biases and we work together towards compromise and consensus.  See WP:OWN.
 * When you see something that needs changing, change it. But when someone objects to that change, go and discuss it with them.  We have a red line called 3RR; if you revert material on the same page three times in 24 hours, you are immediately blockable for edit-warring.  But that's only the easily-adjudicated case; any series of reverts without discussing it with the others involved is edit-warring and not allowed.  (There are narrow exceptions to this for reverting blatant vandalism and spam, but they have to be very obvious.  Calling edits by someone who disagrees with you 'vandalism' doesn't get you a free pass).  See WP:EW and WP:DR.
 * Keep cool and be good to each other. The more the other guy fails to keep cool and be good to you, the more you need to keep cool yourself.  Seek to de-escalate rather than escalate, to make peace rather than war.  See WP:CIVILITY.
 * Don't harass other editors. Don't discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics.  You don't own the content you create.  Don't vandalise, don't abuse multiple accounts.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia restate a lot of that in more positive terms and might be helpful.


 * I hope that helps. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have questions.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @GoldenRing, Hello, like Approaching, I too have been attacked by one or two people on the WLC talk page. So, I'd like to request that you continue watching that page for a few weeks if possible. Especially because one or two people have a palatable hatred and/or extreme disrespect for the subject of the article.  Such attitudes don't make for good editing and any editing that is done will always be suspicious.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Bill the Cat 7 you want to know about this discussion. Approaching (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow! That is ridiculous.  I should have been informed by Epipelagic as soon as my name was mentioned.  I went ahead and added a note to that thread but since it seems that the issue has been resolved, there was not much to add.  Nevertheless, thanks for the heads up!!  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Your recent editing history at Article 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Yes, I do object to every one of your additions, and no, I will not allow wrong information to sit in the article while we discuss it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Bible and Violence
Hi! A couple months ago you showed an interest in attempting to get some balance in the content of this article by adding some discussion of the legal/moral use of force. I agree with this idea, though unless you can come up with a brilliant suggestion, no one is going to agree to change the title. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in content. I had to take a break out of frustration for awhile but I am back and am trying again. I wondered if you would take a look at the current discussion there on reorganization, and on adding in this concept of force for a more complete scope of the subject of violence. I had a second question there on what theology is as well. Jytdog and I have different definitions and it is preventing anything from happening on this article. If you feel up to it, put in your two cents. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WLC
Regarding your comment at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard "If I were nitpicking, I'd say maybe there are too many numbered inline references popping up too frequently, which interrupts the flow of the text." Those inline references are very necessary, given the history of the article. I haven't personally been involved with it very long, but I've noticed that literally every phrase and fact, no matter how small and uncontroversial, seems to get challenged and attempts made to remove it if it's not supported by a nearby inline ref. I personally got involved in the article when I saw an uncontroversial biographical clause challenged as that was easily verified from an inline ref at the end of the same sentence. Also, given that you arrived late to the dispute, you may want to check out the predispute revision. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I was mystified by some really absurd edits and issues that came up on this BLP, and what you're saying seems to confirm that. For that reason I'm happy to concede the issue. I find most if not all of your proposals broadly agreeable, by the way. Thanks for reaching out. —Approaching (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, just an FYI, but we've gotten to the section about Craig's philosophy in the dispute. I have the vague impression that you might have some familiarity with it, which would be particularly helpful now. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

John W. Loftus
I agree with you that John W. Loftus' notability is very sketchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandvue (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Günter Bechly‎ for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly‎ 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 Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Project Reason for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Project Reason, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Project Reason until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)