User talk:Purnama 40

December 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Calvinism, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.    Butler Blog   (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You dont have rights to delete the facts about Pastor Stephen Tong Early Life that came from his own mouth. By keep doing that, you are seen as a nonchristian, antiChrist or one of his haters. Purnama 40 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Purnama 40, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hello there. Stephen Tong is my pastor and he founded Reformed Church in Indonesia. Why you guys keep deleting him?? Purnama 40 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you that he hosted the Refo 500? Yes, it is hold in Jakarta! Purnama 40 (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It was very disrespectful of you people to keep deleting it. But Stephen Tong wont care, most important is God's view, not human. Purnama 40 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're here simply to promote one thing (and you clearly have a self-stated personal bias), that's not what Wikipedia is about. If you care to learn about Wikipedia, it's principles, and you are here to help build an encyclopedia, then by all means, please participate. I removed your initial edit because it did not meet Manual of Style for in-wiki linking. However, there are other valid reasons for removing it, simply because the list itself has already become a dumping ground for people's personal favorites. In the lead paragraph, the list should only include information expounded on in the article, so anyone in the list that is not brought up later in the article does not belong in the lead.  I would agree with you that Tong is notable, simply on the basis that Westminster has an endowed chair in his name.  But that in and of itself does not constitute a reason for inclusion.  Also note that the list you added him to is a list of 20th century individuals who not only were influential, but are also deceased.  If added, he needs to be in the list following.  None of this should constitute consensus - you can't build consensus on your personal talk page.  When there is editorial disagreement, take it to the article's talk page and build consensus through discussion.  Support your argument based on Wikipedia's principles, manual of style, and other editorial norms (i.e. linking to another wikipedia page is not a "source").  We've given you links to information on how to learn to participate in Wikipedia - there will need to be some effort on your part to take the next steps.  Don't take things personally - there is a process here - learn it and you'll do fine.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Whatever dude. God Knows who Stephen Tong is. Do whatever you want Purnama 40 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're not here to build an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTHERE), but rather to push a personal bias in which you have a stated conflict of interest (WP:COI). We've given you info on how to participate here - if you refuse to work within the existing standards and principles, that's your choice.  Butler Blog   (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I said do whatever u want. End of discussion. Purnama 40 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * One more thing. You dont have interest in my pastor page. Why did u reverse my changing? U should create your own pastor page. Purnama 40 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried to give you some guidance as well as specific Wikipedia guides on where those standards come from, but it's on you to read and learn how to participate here. Maybe you need to start with WP:PILLARS. The edit on Tong's page was WP:PUFFERY and WP:EDITORIAL which is not encyclopedic copy.  If you care to discuss that, it should be done on the article's talk page. Like I stated above, discuss article content at the article so that other editors are aware and can participate.  That's the only way you'll build consensus (although you'll not get consensus to put in editorial wording like "tireless" and if you bother to read what I've already given you, the reasons why should be obvious).   Butler Blog   (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Dont worry. Whoever you are. You surely cleverer than me. Purnama 40 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to help you not get reverted and/or blocked. Your obtuse responses would indicate that you're not really here to build an encyclopedia (WP:BUILDWP).  Butler Blog   (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You keep repeating a statement by judging me. God sees everything. Say it again and make more sins, whoever you are.
It is you .like judging people over and over again. It is your sin, not mine. Purnama 40 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Block notice
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are editing Wikipedia with a specific agenda and are not taking on board any of the policies being explained to you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Do whatever u want Purnama 40 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)