User talk:JALatimer

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Retran's unwarranted removals...
For what it's worth, I'm not sure why you would appreciate Retran's wholesale unwarranted destruction and removal of valid objective complete and important descriptions and details, with the nonsensical unreasonable and UNTRUE excuse that they were "POV" when they were not, and how he did not demonstrate in any way AT ALL how they were supposedly "POV."

Not sure why you're siding with him, with his reckless removals. Whether he has a point in what he said in the talk page or not, his nonsense on the article was over-reaching, unnecessary, and even disrespectful. These things were NOT "original research" or "POV", as these were things either stated by the groups THEMSELVES, OR...are stated as how OTHERS view them. Without taking sides necessarily one way or the other. Creation Seventh Day Adventists do NOT hold to the Nicean Trinity doctrine.

And Oneness Pentecostals THEMSELVES have said that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible and is from pagan philosophy. So to remove those IMPORTANT points as somehow "POV" is really reckless and destructive and makes no good editorial or logical sense. Nothing that was removed was proven to be biased point of view. They were just documented things stated by the very groups themselves. Case closed. Sweetpoet (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
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 Milton Friedman. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 04:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Redirect of Matthew 6:7
You might want to check out this thread on ANI on this subject. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only Warning on This
Please do not edit war as you have here, as that is not allowed against the rules. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this make you feel big? To give me my "only warning on this". Please. Chill out for goodness sake. If I'm edit warring, you are. Calm down and learn to discuss without bullying and tyrannizing people. And please don't continue to hide behind "consensus" as consensus does not even exist. Please participate in the consensus polling/building and stop bulldozing this article. You are not a hero by redirecting the article or by "stopping" me from reverting your redirect. -- JALatimer 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU are engaged in an edit war. -- JALatimer 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're new, so I am going to give you benefit of the doubt, but you are trying my patience. We go on the consensus already, even if it is 10 years old.  Until then, we don't edit war about it, we take it to talk (you already took it to ANI) and establish new consensus, but until that is established, you need to chill. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but with your 4th revert, you broke 3RR and I have had to report you. Not something I wanted to do, as whether you have read it or not, we both share the same opinion, just I am going on the consensus established, not what I want to see. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't had to do anything. You're just a meanspirited, selfish person who likes to get his way, while hiding behind rules. -- JALatimer 04:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Meanspirited? Meh, I have been called worse.  Selfish, nah.  But "likes to get his way"...it is the way of consensus (God, I am tired of typing that word) and not my way.  If it were my way, the pages would be up for everyone to see and this is coming from a Lutheran. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010 (2)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Matthew 6:7. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 04:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but that change needs to be shown
"Whatever "consensus" was achieved 5 years ago may not apply to the way things are on the ground now." - While true, you should prove new consensus before edit warring against the previously determined consensus. If this was a 5 days ago issue, you may have a point, but it appears these redirects have been stable for years and unless you can show that consensus has now changed, edit warring will likely lead to a block for you. --Onorem♠Dil 04:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * All I'm trying to do is save the article from being bulldozed so no one gets to read it. I want the encyclopedia to be good. But neutralhomer has assumed bad faith and been antagonistic toward me from the beginning, and is now using threats to get his way. You decide who is acting inappropriately. I feel really lousy. As a new user, I feel like I've gotten caught up in some ancient conflict that has nothing to do with me with a bunch of people shouting about consensus and threatening to salt this and block that. Go ahead. Block me. You've already made me not want to contribute anymore anyway for fear I'll accidentally disturb some 5 year old consensus and get slapped just for editing an article in good faith. -- JALatimer 04:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, I am sorry you fell that way. It was not my intention to upset you and I have tried to talk to you calmly and quietly, but there are rules here we must uphold, rules we are all bound by editing here.  If you wish not to edit these pages, it is easily as moving onto something else.  I share the same opinion of these pages' inclusion as you do, but I am also bound by that 4 year consensus as you.  What I like to see on Wikipedia is different from what can be seen on Wikipedia. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't the inclination or ability to block you. I was just trying to give you fair warning. As a new user, you should accept that you don't understand the process fully and slow down. You almost certainly will not "win" with a brute force approach. Stop reverting. Start reading up on the history of the situation. Start reading up on policy. Then present an argument on one of the pages discussing the situation. --Onorem♠Dil 04:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) JAL, I'm sorry you disagree with the current state of the article, but there are policies on Wikipedia that govern how things are done. Neutralhomer and Onorem have tried above to help you realize that, I echo their concerns. Please discuss, and don't edit war. If you think the consensus has changed, by all means discuss it, but don't try and force it through reverting. If the new consensus develops, the old edits can always be brought back, that's not a problem. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Go discuss at Bible verses/2010‎ please. Continuing to edit war will lead to blocks. Prodego talk  04:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one wants to use that page. They just want to go about redirecting, deleting, and salting like the good-ole-days while bullying and blocking anyone who thinks that maybe an article they'd like to hatchet is worth keeping.


 * What consensus? If you agree with me, that makes at least three users who support inclusion. How many users currently oppose? Why don't you ask around and see what other people think. Instead of assuming. If you actually cared about making positive change, that's what you'd be doing.


 * You are not sorry. It seems to me you enjoy being "right" above all else. And you've found that by lecturing other people on the "rules", it makes you feel important and better than others. Good for you. Leave me alone. Sorry if I'm being mean. I'm just tired of people bullying and acting better 'cause they've been here a long time. Just leave me alone. Go pick on somebody else.


 * I have discussed. I wouldn't have "edit warred" if neutralhomer had just chilled out and stopped redirecting. I'm not sorry for what I've done because I did it to promote a good encyclopedia. -- JALatimer 04:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he wouldn't have either if you had just chilled out and stopped un-redirecting. Of course neither of you did. But you can not edit war, edit wars never help "promote a good encyclopedia" - they aren't making any progress towards improving the article, they just waste everyone's time. Prodego  talk  04:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ya know what, I am not going to comment any further after this. We obviously aren't seeing eye to eye on this and there is no way I can get you to see things from the community's perspective, maybe someone else can.  Take Care. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Nobody here is bullying you. We're simply trying to explain the process around here. 4+ years of no edit warring over the redirects hints at an assumed consensus. There is no deadline for fixing these article's status. Make your arguments on discussion pages instead of edit warring. Edit warring is historically unsuccessful...especially from newer accounts (even if that's not fair.) --Onorem♠Dil 05:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Vain Repetition indeed (Blocked)
I see that you have decided to continue edit warring after I (among others) explicitly warned you not to. As a result I have blocked you for 55 hours - substantially longer than normal since you were given substantially many more chances than normal. Prodego talk  05:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)