User talk:Orphadeus

Welcome!

Hello, Orphadeus, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

May 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Metric expansion of space. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Regarding your posts to Talk:Number of the Beast
Your first post wasn't censored, it was moved to the bottom to the talk page, where all all new messages go. Assume good faith.

A summary of some guidelines you may find useful

 * Please place your posts on talk pages at the bottom of the talk page.
 * Always cite a source for any new information added to articles, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette, and sourcing
I would not have thought that it needed to be explained that new messages do not go into the archives of older discussions, due to the name "archive."

Also, I see you added unsourced info to the Gospel of Mark and Book of Revelation articles, even though I explained the citing and sourching guidelines. Once again: '''*Always cite a source for any new information added to articles, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.'''

I'm still assuming good faith. This may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there are still guidelines (which you have been notified of more than once), which represent site-wide consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"ARCHIVE"
That's what "archive" means in different dictionaries. You do speak English, right? Talk page archives are for older, finished discussions. Adding new posts there is disruptive. Adding new posts in the hopes of that the post will be read and responded to is stupid. If I see this kind of nonsense again, I'm going to treat it as vandalism. It was pointed out to you multiple times what the archives are for, where to post on talk pages, and yet you still didn't get that posts go on the bottom, and restored your post to the archives. This, combined with your basic failure to understand no original research no matter how many times it's explained indicates to me you clearly have no idea what you're doing here, and you're making me strongly question your ability to comprehend basic communications. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "A place for storing earlier, and often historical, material. An archive usually contains documents (letters, records, newspapers, etc.) or other types of media kept for historical interest."
 * "archives, a place where public records or other historical documents are kept."

May 2011
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 Book of Revelation, you may be blocked from editing. Those Bible verses would work for exegesis, but as I explained earlier: I will be clearer on the last part: we only report notable views, or relevant views by notable individuals or groups. I have already explained notability guidelines before. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at extinction (astronomy). Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Modest Genius talk 19:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Extinction (astronomy), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2011 (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 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) 22:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring on more than one article, persistent use of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, use of edit summaries which misrepresent the nature of your edits, etc etc. Please note that making this a limited block is giving you considerable benefit of the doubt. Unless you can show considerably more competence and ability to understand what other editors say to you, it is very likely that you will be blocked indefinitely. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

People might find it interesting to know I was blocked for up to and including section 4 here. Theres a technical further down the page. Its sections 3 and 4 they don't like. Orphadeus (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Orphadeus (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As for 'I didn't hear that', check the discussion page of [[the article]. If you've got some time its a good one. Theres numerous unambiguous references from me (as there are in the article), no references from them (some of the same folk who have been posting threats on this page), and 'I didn't hear that'. Orphadeus (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it
What is your problem? Your additions to Extinction (astronomy) have been explained to be wrong by multiple editors, some of them professional astronomers. That even laypeople have pointed out that you're using those sources wrong should show just how wrong you are. You were blocked by an uninvolved editor, who did not unblock you. How do you not understand that your actions are inappropriate?

I have no choice but to believe you are a troll, or so mentally deficient or damaged that you are incapable of being anything but a troll, and I will treat you as such from now on. You are only going to waste your time on this site, just leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. 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. Daniel Case (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Its fair to point out that Orphadeus was banned indefinately for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.106.244 (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jane C. Charlton


The article Jane C. Charlton has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 11:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)