User talk:Chad The Goatman/Archive 2

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Civility
Please be civil to other editors. There is no need for edit summaries like this. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I'm so sick of that "" (or go to its editing page, as see why I'm having not a good mood) and I presumed its anonymous accounts for over months, all due of the that denomination's identity is strongly implied as a 'Protestant Eastern Christian', due of its history say they are, while that user keep claiming they're fully Eastern Christian (and now even [Independent] Oriental Orthodox), solely because its a St. Thomas Christian denomination; with its sources are unironically not helping its case, as they're favoring my side, over its, but it keep claiming they're still a fully Eastern Christian, and keep undoing it. As I never touched that page for two-three months until two days ago, as when it suddenly reappeared and undoing it.


 * And that I when a almost got emotional meltdown, as I can't taken this anymore, seen from the some multiple undos, between these two time periods from last year and this year. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I take 's explanation in entirely good-faith. Wikipedia can indeed be frustrating. My encounters with him have always been pleasant, and, at the same time, I would kindly ask that you assume good faith (as difficult as that be in sometimes). There may well be good reasons for Chad's frustrations, so please also recognize he is a new-ish editor who is not familiar with Wikipedia's labyrinth of policies and minutiae. He may not even be aware of bold, revert, discuss. Going forward, I suspect, he will revert Chandy of Pakalomattom's edits, when he disagrees with a calm and mostly neutral edit summary, and initiate a discussion on the talkpage to establish a local consensus with respect to editing decisions for that page. If Chandy were to not engage in such discussions, then Chad can take Chandy to WP:ANI. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem, that I already reporting this months ago, but however, since that user is somehow have editing privileges, has continuously undoing it with either with vague (and possibly worst outdated) sources or without it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Weird. Your 3RR report was well cited with diffs, and I see the result was full (admin) page protection for one month. I'm guessing they waited the month out, then resumed reverting. I would consider taking the editor to ANI again because they seem to be unwilling to discuss things., can you recommend the best solution here? Doug Mehus T · C  02:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , to add to what I said in the previous ping, when you are looking at the edit history for Mar Thoma Syrian Church, please know that has apologized for his uncivil edit summary and I take his apology sincerely. I do think this page could potentially benefit from another month of full page protection, with an administrator placing a further notice on "Chandy of Pakatomattom"'s talkpage to engage in a talkpage discussion. What do you think? Doug Mehus  T · C  03:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's kind of a mess, I'd say. And I see now (after looking at Articles for deletion/Protestant Eastern Christianity) that it's even more of a mess than is immediately apparent. I also see that there is some discussion on the talk page, but it's not well organized (I think should do a better job following talk page guidelines), and while I think I see a consensus of sorts, it's not all that clear. The best answer here is an RfC, with a properly phrased and precise question, and a broader invitation to other editors (RfCs sort of do that automatically). I can overlook an edit summary, though it's not something to be proud of, but, Chad The Goatman, please let me never see you use "it" to refer to another editor again. And, while we're on the topic, you may accuse the other editor of bad grammar, but people in glass houses should probably not throw stones. I think y'all should try to hammer this out formally on the talk page, but possibly invite larger discussion on that Prot. Eastern Chr. talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the reply, and looking into it further. I think an RfC would be useful as well to try and solicit input beyond the handful of editors that appear to be editing the page. Doug Mehus T · C  16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Hello Chad. You must be aware that it is controversial to claim that this church is protestant. The next time you make an edit like this one that reinstates the protestant claim, without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page, you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, excuse me?!? As I ranted about that user "" that I have a GOD DAMN problem over the last months–as the rant happened days ago, I didn't or even heavily implying say they're fully [or really Western Christian-like] Protestants, just because they're a St. Thomas Christian denomination. I just assumed they're could be semi-Eastern Christian with some or more Protestant elements, base on how their religious identity has been (as I could say) influenced by the British Empire, and having a Communion with a Western Christian Church like Anglican faith is rarely ever accepted between these two Christian denominational families. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chad, if says you're edit warring, you're edit warring, it's as simple as that. Whether you are right or wrong doesn't really matter. Ed, I suggested (can't remember on what talk page) that the "Protestant" matter should be hammered out first, by way of an RfC--I don't know if they started that. Thank you for your note. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

, can I offer you some friendly advice? I don't doubt that is equally involved in this content dispute, and doesn't seem to be properly engaging in the talkpage discussion as best as they should. But, this seems to me to be a rather trivial editing dispute. I would personally recommend just moving on, or limiting your editing to adding "citation needed" tags to the article where claims aren't cited by reliable, independent sources. At the end of the day, what's the point in worrying about this church's Wikipedia article?

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  23:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole problem, that I'm trying to move on at the very beginning, when every user is helping improve the Protestant Eastern Christianity page a year and a quarter ago, that I started; but since its been a while ago, I may don't remember that good, but I was thinking that someone its add that Church for the page's section, that I could be up-to-date. However, since the 's earlier anonymous account(s) is begin undoing my edit without its reasoning (even without good English grammar), and this hooked me of keep undoing it on-off between late 2018 to late 2019, that when I give up for now. And that user "happy" she/he? wants. For now...


 * And later (which is days ago), since I thought that user is finally done and possibly moving on, that I thought could reverted back in peace... that when quickly revealed, that user is not giving up at all, that when I have a emotional meltdown on couple emotional rants-based undos, that I can't controlled back then. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not suggesting that it's just you or anything, not at all. It takes two to tangle. Would you be in favour of a short-term, very narrow (a single article) topic ban for you and in which you both would be prohibited from at least editing Mar Thoma Syrian Church for a short-term period (say, 30 days to start)? It could be formal or informal, and if there's agreement for it, the two of you could still engage in talkpage discussions. But, as I see it, both of you need to take a break from the topic and it would be unfair to ask just one of you to do so., what do you think, do you think it might be time for the two of them to take a short-term break from the topic? Doug Mehus  T · C  00:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , When you say Chandy's "earlier anonymous account(s)," do you mean Chandy is editing while logged out (as an IP address), or you suspect they are using multiple accounts? Both are frowned upon (the latter especially so), but if you have particular revisions you can link to, that would be helpful for confirming whether the editor is editing across multiple aliases. Doug Mehus T · C  00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess fine, I will and along with that user (which give that user more than just a month topic ban), to stop editing that section for that page, even its just a classification and trivial, which I'm only wanted my edit to leave it as or improve on by a completely different user, with possible good primary/secondary good sources.


 * For the latter sentence, I already given you the page, that containing the users' possible anonymous accounts in a 3RR archived page. From the same the talk section days ago. Chad The Goatman (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Chad, it looks like you ignored my above warning and are continuing to edit war. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked? There may still be time for you to self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I realized WHY you're technically defending that same user, when I just now remembered that I was needed your help months ago on least your trying of helping me of this problem, that isn't make at ALL effective for me, since I'm actually not effective enough to handled this on myself, due of neuro-developmental disability. Plus I don't wanted to hate you at all, especially this won't helping my [nerve-based] state as I in right now, both here and outside of the Internet.


 * Along, I already promised by of stay off from that page two-three hours ago, from an minor topic-based ban. Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that your final answer? If so I am planning to ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No its not... Do you understand, I don't wanna to hate you on trying force me of undoing my edits, especially again, I'm not in mentally good right now, and I'm mean it, that I'm damn not obsessing about at the very beginning as I told other user, above this, if that user won't damn forcing me onto, for all the last few months... And do you that, damn f@cken fine, I'm god damn undoing my edit that supposedly me "controversial" that is trivial...


 * Congratulations, I'm begin to [******] hate you, after undoing this ironic pointless edit. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the self-revert. Consider using WP:Dispute resolution to settle the underlying issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Left Renewal logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Left Renewal logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Religious organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been nominated for deletion
Category:Religious organizations associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your 18:25, 30 April 2020 edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases
I was tracking down a corruption today in this page and traced it to one of your edits. Can you explain why on April 30 you changed the NC cases number of April 25 from 490 to 571? Changing old data is generally not recommended without strong justification. All the NC numbers from that day forward reflect state-reported cumulative totals, so if you are adding cases on one day, you need to subtract cases from the previous or subsequent day. That also requires updating the daily and cumulative totals. Since you did not do any of that, I am reverting the change. Mark Taylor (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mild sorry for not replying earlier, but the reason of 're-correcting' the case numbers on April 25th, was due of I just remember that one point, the official Raleigh News & Observer website, did reported that the NC state government did a inflated and a bit exaggeration about that day's cases, while that newspaper organization actually said it could be 490 cases, maybe not 571 cases. But I'm really try to finding, that article, but its likely they taken down or its lost by being auto-updating with the continuous reporting of the virus, for everyday. Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Souverainism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Souverainism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Souverainism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Important standard notice re: edits relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 03:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just making sure you are aware of this - as well as WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content") and WP:OR (all text must be backed by cited sources that "directly support the material being presented"). Thanks --Neutralitytalk 03:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Hello,may I know what Protestant theology the Mar Thoma Church follows? MalankaraSuriyaniNazrani (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well judging from both the Wikipedia page's history section, and the official Church's website itself, has didn't referencing they officially accept Miaphysitism nor the Council of Chalcedon, where they drawn the line, being part of their current belief–but instead but greatly on the emphasis on the Reformation part of their history, due being that the Church is thousands miles away from the meeting to decree on unrecognized the Chalcedonian Definition, plus the Oriental Orthodox Churches has no mention them being a Independent Oriental Orthodox Church on the India subsection. Chad The Goatman (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Protestant Christianity
Dear User:Chad The Goatman, I appreciate you sending me thanks for my edits at Eastern Protestant Christianity. I have opened a discussion here and would be grateful if you shared your thoughts. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 22:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PEI politics
Howdy. Your math was off a tad bit at Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, but don't worry, I fixed it :) GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good, so there nothing that is not a problem for me. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Galloway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for assisting in preserving the article Eastern Orthodox Church. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two haters of Russian Orthodox Church, who destruct articles about Orthodox Christianity cheering each other, nothing to see here --ZXBOI (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use edit summaries to describe changes, not to describe your experiences with the BLP or kvetch, etc.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea, I do understand, but that user needs to provided like any one or two sources (either is primary or secondary) like notable entertainment articles, to back the user's sentence up. But in the same time, that user has a bit triggering me to remember from months ago, of that time before the 2020 US presidential election, as mentioned from these technically non-topic reasons. But overall, the only edit I just but there, is the criteria needed notification for that sentence, that previous user need provided more evidence (via linking the previous sources in his page, as possible evidence(s)), as the site bigger rules. Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Santa Muerte
Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently removed content from Santa Muerte without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there is one sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph, mentioning that the non-Catholic Latin American Protestant Churches also condemning the believers of Santa Muerte religious movement. So, why not changing the title to reflecting Western Christian views of the Santa Muerte religious movement. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your reply. I removed the phrase "Western Christianity" because the term is too broad since it comprises all the Christian denominations and churches that belong to the Western tradition (Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Independent Catholic, Presbyterian, Restorationist, etc...), whereas the cult of Santa Muerte is primarily, if not exclusively, opposed by the Roman Catholic Church and various Evangelical-Pentecostal churches in Mexico and South America. But I agree with you that the title of that section is incorrect because it includes a mention of Protestant churches as well, therefore I'll proceed to split that section into two distinct sections, one concerning the opposition from the Catholic Church and the other from the Protestant churches. GenoV84 (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your editions to the Vivienne Medrano page!
As the creator of the page who has fought for its creation since April of this year, I really appreciate it, because I made a bunch of removals in hopes of getting it approved as a page, and apparently that did the trick. Whew. Here's assorted notes of what I removed at the time, which need better, reliable sources, which can be found at User:Historyday01/sandbox. Most of what's there is self-published stuff, which is why I am, personally, wary of adding it in, as someone will slap a tag on the page saying there are too many self-published sources (which once happened on the pages for Hazbin and Helluva). --Historyday01 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're pretty much welcome, and I will help more a little later. Chad The Goatman (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'm glad it got accepted, finally, and now I know to not go through the drafting process again, unless absolutely necessary. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the offer. But, I'm currently not interested on doing this subject. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Converts to new religious movements from Anabaptism


A tag has been placed on Category:Converts to new religious movements from Anabaptism indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Converts from Anabaptism


A tag has been placed on Category:Converts from Anabaptism indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Furry Requests for Articles
Hi there, Chad The Goatman,

I'm JaredTamana, a contributor to WikiProject Furry. In 2017, you submitted a request to the project page for creation of Nazi Furs and Altfurry due to the events revolving around Rocky Mountain Fur Con at that time.

Due to the age of request, I am wondering if this is something you are still interested in, or if you are opposed to the request's removal from the project page. The reason I ask is due to the wider relevance of Wikipedia. I believe that these topics are a great fit for the likes of WikiFur, but that they may fall short of the interest of general Wikipedians browsing furry interest.

If this is something that can be removed, it may help with the focus of the project by decluttering the requests section. On the other hand, I am open to these articles still being created, and am happy to discuss their potential structure. I'm fairly familiar with the topic, even if dusting off the archives is required in the process. :3 JaredTamana (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can redirect them to the Alt-right and Far-right subcultures instead. So, in otherwords, I think is rather better to them into as a sections, rather than full pages. Chad The Goatman (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, sections to which article? Would you like these implemented as redirects? Please specify. JaredTamana (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you that serious?!? I show you these two links to the real alt-right and far-right subculture pages (and now I think about it, make the latter as a subsection, under the (if) newly created section dubbed "Far-right subcultures and other subcultures"), but as not redirects, of where to sending these sub-variants ("Altfurry" and "Nazi Furs") of guessing between far-right subcultures (and includes alt-right) and furries. Where I think it's better to send them, rather than as full-on pages, just as to mostly prevent possible future edit wars, by possible real neo-nazi/far right furries apologetics. Chad The Goatman (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure inserting furry fandom interests into mainstream articles is the best route to go here, pretty sure my edits would just be reverted on the basis of relevance.
 * Appreciate your input, but I think I'll leave this one to you if you're still interested in it. I'm not looking to frustrate you further.
 * Cheers! JaredTamana (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Unification Church is not Christian
They do not believe in Jesus’ Divinity, His birth to the virgin Mary, and they think all the miracles He did was magic.

There is no Christian denomination that believes this. Quick being an annoyingly ignorant Moonie about this, and stop worshiping the founders words as Gospel. They have no idea how Christianity works. 2001:579:925C:660:8948:858E:3B4A:E3DA (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, first all. Not, even a Moonie if you did ever look my user homepage.
 * And, secondly, please provide counter-evidence via primary/secondry sources, if the UC is entirely non-Christian.
 * Thanks... Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Original Research - "Luhansk People's *Federal* Republic"
The name "Luhansk People's Republic" is well-established. However, in October 2022, you changed the name of the LPR to the "Luhansk People's Federal Republic" in the article about governments in exile -->. Where does this name come from? I have removed the extra word "Federal" on the charge of being original research. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, mostly guess as based that in the Russian federation, as they political areas within the country (including the ones that are occupied like Luhansk) as a [autonomous] Republic. So, since these two (with Donetsk) are no longer as a partially-recognized breakway nations since Sept 30th. I for now, wanted to technically treating these unrecognized autonomous Republic with a hypothetical name. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Officially, the name of these republics is still the "Donetsk People's Republic" and the "Luhansk People's Republic" respectively, as far as I'm aware. Just because they joined the Russian Federation, that does not necessarily mean that their names have changed. Indeed, I have not seen the name "Luhansk People's Federal Republic" anywhere on the internet except in your edit that I've highlighted above, which means it was probably a term that you coined yourself. | Note: In Russia, there is such a thing as the "republics of Russia", which is a common type of Russian administrative subdivision. Russia doesn't specify "autonomous", unlike Ukraine, for example (which has the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea"). This is similar to how the United States and Australia refer to many of their subdivisions as "states", even though this term is indistinguishable from the usage of "state" to mean a sovereign state or country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)