User talk:Nietzsche123

August 2012
Your recent editing history at International Churches of Christ 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tripod
Anyone can post anything to a blog and claim it is something. We need to base all content, particularly content regarding accusations of criminal activity, on sources with a reputatation for fact checking and accuracy. Tripod blogs are not one of them. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the actual source?
Re this edit and the comment on talk page. Do you have access to the original article to be able to state with all certainty that the Wikipedia article is accurately reporting what appeared in the newspaper and placing it in appropriate context or are you just going on what the open blog says the newspaer says? -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my university library has provided me access to the article. I made sure to quote the article correctly, and place the quotes in the appropriate context. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I agree with you in that it's expected of the author of the citation to make sure his/her source is verifiable. I do disagree about the Betsy Draper bit.  It strikes me that a letter published to students by their university chaplain is a reliable source.  For what it's worth, I didn't mean for my use of 'Indeed' before 'Robert Thornburg, dean of...]' to connote favoritism to what he was saying.  I meant to mean merely something like: he has something additional to say. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is "reliable" as proof that Draper sent that open letter to students at campus. What is not proven is that Draper is a known and reliable source about "cults". Anyone can say anything. We publish what the subject matter experts say. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Each external link needs to have a valid and explicit reason to be there. OFFICIAL says that the primary website from the subject of the article is expected to be listed. However, Wikipedia is not here to provide a linkwall for every ICOC website. If there is another official ICOC website that gives better access to a reader for general encyclopedic information about the ICOC, then we can switch to a different one, but there is no encyclopedic value in providing links to ICOC's newsfeed or their church locator. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sinner's Prayer
I am SO GLAD you made the correction about Platt. I had not found that he has retracted his criticism. (He had come on really strong.) Thanks for being alert to this. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Churches of Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Platt (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) 20:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "International Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes,". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 18:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

CANVASSING USER:Qewr4231 for Discussion on International church of Christ
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

Come on @Nietzsche123 Lets be civil, apply a NPOV and follow WP POLICIES as we try to find consensus on this article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha. You've got to be kidding me, JamieBrown2011.  At first I thought that this was a joke.  After all, you're about the least civil and unprofessional editor I've come across on Wikipedia.  Moreover, the vast majority of your edits on the ICOC page portrays a clear lack of NPOV against any criticism of the ICOC.  Finally, as I and other editors have pointed out time and time again, you're guilty of violating WP policies.  Try to follow them yourself before accusing others. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My post here is not about whether you canvassed or not, but to point you to this table, used in this page. The idea of the triangle is that you stay in the top three sections. However, your above post seems to be in the Ad Hominem section at best. Remember, in replies, to address the points raised, than addressing the qualities of other editors who warned you. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DR/N
In your recent post at the DR/N you made a couple of comments that I feel are not appropriate and may misunderstand our policy on word for word usage. You are correct of course that it is not right to do, but is considered a copyright concern. It would/should be removed on sight without discussion and that means you are basically correct in you comments, but just used verbiage that might be construed differently. Perhaps you could strike out those comments and replace the word with less charging terminology?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me aware of this, Mark. I've amended my recent edit as you suggested. -Nietzsche123 (talk)

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.

3rr warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your assessment, JamieBrown2011. I only reverted two edits today; and both I discussed why I made the edits both times on the talk page.  Rather than just make revisions willy-nilly, you need to discuss them on the talk page.  You have reverted my edits a total of five times now without addressing the fact that your edits violate WP:UNDUE.  And you reverted my edits three times before addressing why you deleted a portion of the article that was accurately cited.  Before undoing the edits of other editors willy nilly, you need to discuss things on the talk page.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nietzsche123, you broke the 3RR by reverted or changing other editors material 4 times in a 24 hr period. The evidence is found here:

   

If I report this to the Admin notice board you very likely will be banned as this has occurred on a number of occasions and you have been warned before about this disruptive editing. However, I see you apologised on my Talk page and I trust in the sincerity of your apology so I will keep this just between us. You can see my further comments on my Talk page. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history at International Churches of Christ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

I see you changed multiple edits without explanation on the International Church of Christ page. Please find consensus before making edits to this site. Sandelk (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sandelk, I did not in fact violate the three-revert rule. I didn't perform more than three reverts in a 24-hour period.  I only made one revert in a 24-hour period.  I also clearly explained my edits on the talk page, which I indicated in my description of my edit.  Please refer to that.  I ask that you follow WP policy and not revert my edits willy-nilly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nietzsche123, while you may have made only 1 edit, that edit affected well over 3 edits that others had made. I was not simply reverting the edit willy-nilly, but trying to restore the latest edits of others, as reflected in the talk page. Sandelk (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandelk, I think your reversion of my edit was willy-nilly: you didn't even attempt to justify your edit on the talk page. I don't think you were merely restoring the latest edits of others as reflected on the talk page mainly for the reason that you failed to address my comments regarding my revert.  While my revert did affect over 3 edits that others have made, it was only one revert.  Moreover, by the same reasoning, you violated 3RR since your revert undid more than three of my edits.  So either we're both guilty of violating the rule, or neither one of us is.  I think that the latter is right. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Sandelk, you reverted my edits without justifying why on the talk page. Please don't do that.  Not only is it against WP policy, it's also a destructive editing habit that doesn't contribute to the overall quality of the article.  The reverts that you made that lack justification concern TBM, the ICOC on College Campuses, and information from CRJ. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nietzsche123, the reason for my changes were indicated in the edit itself. I was simply reverting the page to the last view where others edits could be accurately reflected. There was no consensus made about the topics you changed and thus I was simply restoring these pages to there original form. Sandelk (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandelk, no consensus was needed for my revert. I justified it on the talk page.  If you're going to revert another user's edits, you need to justify them on the talk page.  Moreover, if you refer to my justification on the talk page, I argue why no consensus was reached to make the edits that I reverted in the first place.  There have been many edits in the past few days that seem to amount to nothing more than an attempt to whitewash the ICOC article from any criticism.  This is unacceptable.  Prominent controversies covered by reliable secondary sources should be discussed in a neutral and fair way, not simply removed.  If you have suggestions for how a particular critical section of the article should be improved, let's discuss it.  But simply removing critical material that accords with WP policy won't do. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nietzsche123, the issue is that the critical material you used as a source for your changes was flagged by several WP members and thus the edits shouldn't have been made until consensus was agreed by the group before making the changes. I do agree that prominent controversies should be reflected on the page, but in the appropriate sections that should also be discussed and consensus achieved. There is already a fair amount reflected in this page and adding a debatable source does not help the matter. I'm not trying to work against you and am willing to help make this page an accurate reflection of this movement. Sandelk (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandelk, three editors, including you, flagged TBM as a violation of WP policies. Three editors, including me, attested that TBM didn't violate WP policies.  I only reinserted the material after I discussed my argument on the talk page.  This is in accordance with WP policy.  I'm pretty sure no consensus is required for what I did; if I'm wrong, please show me.  Come to think of it, a consensus may be required to remove a verifiable criticism that is neutrally and fairly worded from a reliable source.  The source was already in the article for some time now; so I was adding nothing new, just undoing its removal.  Thank you for your willingness to work with me.  I look forward to working with you on further improving the quality of the article. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about user JamieBrown2011 and JamieBrown2011's picture and JamieBrown11's Neutrality
JamieBrown2011 posted the following photo in the ICOC main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Campus_Conference.JPG The photo is listed as JamieBrown2011's own work: Description English: Chicago Campus Conference Date 30 July 2010 Source Own work Author JamieBrown2011

JamieBrown2011 is listed as the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed as the person who inserted this picture into the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Garden_church_service.jpg

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jakarta_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johannesburg_Church_choir.JPG

Now, if these pictures are taken by JamieBrown2011, then it would appear that JamieBrown2011 is a member of the International Churches of Christ as, usually, only members attend ICOC meetings and conferences. If JamieBrown2011 is a member of the ICOC, then JameBrown2011 is not a neutral editor. In fact, JamieBrown2011 might be trying to skew the article to paint a false and rosy picture of the ICOC.

JamieBrown2011 has criticized me for not having a neutral point of view on many occasions. But these pictures and the fact that JamieBrown2011 took them seems to hint that JamieBrown2011 does not have a neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 may be a current ICOC member. If JamieBrown2011 is a current ICOC member, then this would explain the fact that JamieBrown2011 tries to delete anything at all negative about the ICOC from the main ICOC article.

In the same way that TransylvanianKarl seemed to be an ICOC member without a neutral view of the ICOC; JamieBrown2011 seems to be the same.

Any thoughts?

Qewr4231 (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Qewr4231, while I have criticized JamieBrown2011 for his editing habits, I'm not sure that his being an ICOC member should prevent him from editing the ICOC WP article. Such a stance would also, it seems to me, rule out ex-members of the ICOC from commenting.  I agree with you that he seems to delete many criticisms from the article that accord with WP policy, leaving me to believe that he deleted them just because they're critical.  However, I don't think that the way to criticize him is to go after his membership to the ICOC (which I think he has openly admitted to being a part of). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about JamieBrown2011: "I agree with you that he seems to delete many criticisms from the article that accord with WP policy, leaving me to believe that he deleted them just because they're critical."

I also agree that members and ex-members should not be banned from editing the ICOC Wikipedia article. It's just that JamieBrown2011 is kind of a bully.

Qewr4231 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

== I thought you might like to know that what JamieBrown2011 went against WP:RS. He kept reverting my posts about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter even though I used Henry and Marilyn Kriete as my source. ==

JamieBrown2011, you reverted my insertion of information about the Henry and Marilyn Kriete letter because you said the source I used was not valid. The source I used were Henry and Marilyn themselves on their own website: http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/

This is Marilyn and Henry Kriete's continuing nine part series on the letter that they wrote in their own words. Henry and Marilyn Kriete are the most valid source on the letter that they wrote.

" 07:28, 23 January 2014‎ JamieBrown2011 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,327 bytes) (-2,467)‎ . . (Removed material from Self Published sources. Will try and find RS for the Henry Kreite letter and discuss on Talk Page before including)"

This revert makes me think that (1) you didn't even check the source I used or (2) you are trying to keep any criticism of the ICOC out of the main article.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2014 (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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)