User talk:Nickidewbear

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2  09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

AfD nomination of Secular Progressivism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Secular Progressivism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Secular Progressivism. Thank you. Soman (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Three-Revert-Rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Zara1709 (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Nazi Party has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Nazi Party constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nick, can I recommend that, rather than try to make your edits "stick", that you click on the discussion tab on the article itself (called the "Talk Page" in wikispeak) and recommend what you would like to see added in the article. Unfortunately the way you are going at the moment is probably not benefical and may lead to a block.  Ta Shot info (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shot info, you might want to know that I made the "Nazi Party" article more neutral and current. Nickidewbear (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: How Can You Classify the Nazi Party As "Far Right" and Say That I'm Not Neutral When...
Nick; Firstly, I identify myself as a right-wing national conservative. Secondly, I never blocked, attacked, or silenced anyone who disagrees with my comments. I removed claims that the Nazi Party is far-left because they're based on fringe, biased literature and thus not part of mainstream opinions. Thirdly, marching on my talk page and saying I scare you and you don't like me and asserting other peoples' experiences with my comments as a basis for your complaint when YOU yourself have been warned multiple times of your vandalistic editing, hardly entitles you to claim I'm unreasonable. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Germanocentric


The article Germanocentric has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and to the extent this article has encyclopedic content it is just a list of things that are Germanocentric in the author's opinion.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 06:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reported to noticeboard
Because of your repeated attempts to force others to accept your own, unreferenced personal analysis at the article Nazi Party, you have been reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You were warned several times about this above. Several editors above also asked that you fix this problem, instead of providing references or engaging in discussion as requested, you have instead chosen to force your personal opinion into the article in question. Please do not do this any more. -- Jayron  32  06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Nazi Party. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/ c)  10:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Nic - you have already been blocked for editwarring at Nazi Party. I don't know why you are continuing to do so. Please note that you keep adding information that is not sourced - and you keep jamming things into the lede which violate policy. Finally, I don't think you quite understand what WP:NPOV means - you probably need to have a read of WP:WEIGHT. Ta --Shot info (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition (with respect to you invention of various "protection templates") you may like to have a look at WP:PP which gives a run down on who does the actually protecting and what they can and cannot do. Shot info (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

((pp-full-indef))
I left a message for you at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy.--David Göthberg (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have speedy deleted this template as it misrepresented policy. I'm not aware of any article ever being indefinitely fully protected, but even if it were we already have protection templates that are supported by policy/consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pp-protected/nazi party
Template:Pp-protected/nazi party has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nazi Party, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been blocked for this stuff before; don't get it going again. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erica Levy
A tag has been placed on Erica Levy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  WackyWace  converse 08:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Erica Levy article
As a member of the GOCE, I went ahead and wikified/edited the article in attempts to support inclusion. If you can indicate projects in which Levy has participated, along with reliable sources, it would greatly lend weight to the recommendation of keeping the article. Information that may benefit the article include a comprehensive list of projects worked on and year of college graduation and degree/major. Cindamuse (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Craig Rivera


The article Craig Rivera has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No content. Just an infobox.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Craig Rivera


The article Craig Rivera has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nothing here establishes the notability of the subject. Working in television does not automatically confer notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SQGibbon (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Craig Rivera
I have nominated Craig Rivera, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Craig Rivera. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SQGibbon (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2011
This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nazi Party, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesus and messianic prophecy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of Days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pharisees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karaites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

editing a source
In this edit you are editing a source. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Activism1234. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Talmud, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''You've been reverted twice. You haven't stopped. Please self-revert immediately and take any issues you see to the talk page for discussion, rather than just add stuff from personal opinions without references... It is looking like edit warring.''  Activism  1234  05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Activism  1234  05:42, 25 September 2012 (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 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. --SineBot (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talmud
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talmud. 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Messianic Judaism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ''You will need to show citations to publications that discuss the concept. Your interpretation of the Bible is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find publications that discuss the change you want to make, cite those and change the entry. Otherwise, please leave it alone.'' Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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 Messianic Judaism, you may be blocked from editing. ''please discuss your changes at the talk page of the article before restoring them. Other editors have concerns about your references.'' Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning, please do not add Judaism-related claims or categories without reliable sourcing
Hi Nickidewbear. You have added Judaism-related claims or categories to such biography articles as Robert Nozick, Eugen Kogon and Rafail Levitsky without proper reliable secondary sourcing supporting your claims or categories. Adding such a category as "Kohanim" based solely (apparently) on the person's last name is not sufficient sourcing. Also, please be aware that Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reliable source for anything; I am talking about this edit. Please review and follow the guidelines at WP:RS and do not add such categories or claims to biography articles without reliable sourcing. Thank you. 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Eugen Kogon. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Eugen Kogon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Messianic Judaism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Miss you are the one that needs to get a grip. I am not the only one that has told you what you are doing is wrong.  Everyone else is wrong and you are right?  It is not of any concern, tho...I am sure your disruption will stop soon. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point you are missing is that no one cares what you know. It is what you can prove through citing reliable sources.  Most webpages are not reliable sources.  The Bible is not a reliable source.  A dictionary is only a reliable source for the narrow use of defining a word.  To take a line from the Bible and use it to prove a point is to apply an interpretation on what it means and that is your original research.  Original research is NOT allowed on Wikipedia.  You have been blocked numerous times for this exact thing.  Why do you insist that Wikipedia, an organization with millions of members who are willing to follow the rules, change the rules for you?  Just stop.  Please.  You can trust that if you don't stop and try to understand what you are doing wrong, someone will come along and stop you.  It is the inevitable consequence of your current actions. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note
You really need to cool it with the personal attacks. You have been told why and how your edits violate policy. The New Testament is a reliable source for nothing except what the New Testament says. Personal exegesis violates WP:OR in its entirety. It is also well-known that a last name of Cohen, or any variant thereof, is not a reliable indicator of Aaronic lineage, let alone male-line Aaronic lineage. Not every Cohen is a Kohein and not every Kohein is named Cohen.

Unfortunately, you now have another block coming your way. I sincerely hope that it isn't an indefinite block, but that is now out of my hands. It would be better for everyone if you could stay and help us improve coverage of your religious principles on this site. I truly have nothing against you or your beliefs. Your viewpoint is a valuable one, and that's what makes me want to work with you further. Or at least it did, before you opened up the can of personal attacks.

good luck. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:16, 26 November 2012 (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 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. --SineBot (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Just to let you know, this started out as an attempt to get you to talk to the other editors here on this collaborative project about what you wanted to accomplish at Messianic Judaism. I tried, as did Evan and John Carter to get you to understand what was needed in the way of references in order to accomplish what you wanted.  You refused to talk and continued to insist that you must be allowed to do it your way.  You are discovering that you can't do that now, I presume.  I hate having to engage in the drama at ANI, but your refusal to even try to understand what we were trying to get across to you left me no choice.  When and if you are allowed to resume editing, I wish you the best of luck. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have misinterpreted these editors as your enemies and have misconstrued their editorial efforts as attacks against you and your faith. They, as well as most editors here, are your fellow collaborators with the very best of intentions regarding the responsibility we share toward our reader. Just because a fellow editor says, "No. You can't do that the way you are trying to do that" does not mean he is an adversary. The editors you are battling all have a long history of working toward resolution. They want the same thing you want...a Quality article supported by verifiable facts (Facts that I, as a reader of the article, can verify on my own .) The sooner you see them for what they are, the sooner they can assist you to achieve what you want. ```Buster Seven   Talk  09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about, Buster. You're believing their propaganda.Nickidewbear (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nickidewbearstop. You are so far off base, I'm not sure you can grasp what is needed on your part. You need to acknowledge, to yourself, that other editors are your collaborators, your collegues, your friends. If you continue to beleive your own propaganda (that they are name-calling heathens) Wikipedia will always be a strife ridden experience. You need to soften your rhetoric and understand your own responsibility in creating this situation. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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 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. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and having a battleground behavior. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked for disruptive editing and battleground behavior. You've taken editor's comments completely out of context to spin them into an attack on you and you have failed to assume good faith in other editors trying to help you understand.  You're editing with a clear point of view and are not taking the time to understand our sourcing requirements.  Further, you are accusing other editors of having an "Anti-Messianic bias".--v/r - TP 18:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)