User talk:Rt.Hon.Rev.Roberts

Welcome!
Hello, Rt.Hon.Rev.Roberts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Sailor Brinkley Cook. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I resent that someone of your person and/or standing was able to take something down that isn't disprovable, nor a hoax, especially given the predatory 'content' in the hoaxes you provide a public dis-service in 'contributing.' If you want to talk about a hoax, then we may discuss the illegal and fraudulent 'content' in the heavy degree of Xtian propaganda that needs to come down before the all of wikipedia is exposed as a hoax for hosting it. Rt.Hon.Rev.Roberts (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you believe the content that you added was true, it was still problematic because you did not base the article on reliable sources—indeed, neither of the two sources you cited even mention a "Sailor Brinkley Cook" anywhere in their bodies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. We cannot draw conclusions from sources that are not also explicitly drawn by the sources themselves. In this sense, we are merely summarizing what has already been published in reliable sources, not what we as editors believe. It's not about whether it's "disprovable", but whether a reliable source says what you are saying. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I used peer reviewed articles from academic journals, and I've also examined much of the content on wikipedia, particularly that aimed at defamation of important figures, and will say that the content is a hoax in its entirety, in and of itself, most pointedly in its attempt to revive religious fundamentalism, and cater to conspiracy theories. I introduced criticism of the facts and speculation, made no claim that all of the material was true, nor to believe such, and put forth an article that cannot be disputed, only criticized. Furthermore, it was about a mythical, conceptual figure arguably noted prior to any of the Xtian hoaxes whose contradictory information to describe their hoax is happily hosted by wikipedia, and served in slavery to bots like you that are willing to harass me in a self defeating fight to sustain a compromising religious role as slaves part of a terrible hoax. Any resemblance to any real life person, people, body, or belief in my article is purely coincidental.
 * I claim that it is actually much easier to determine whether content belongs in Wikipedia. Does the content cite a reliable source that directly verifies the information in question, and is the content written from a neutral point of view? For your article, the answer is no, so it was removed. The same goes for any other article on Wikipedia. If this was your attempt to prove a point about Wikipedia by introducing an article that "isn't disprovable", it clearly failed. As BilCat mentioned, a better use of your time would be to see if the content already in Wikipedia cites reliable sources and is written from a neutral point of view, and start civil discussions about them on the appropriate talk page if you think the answer is no. If you attempt again to introduce an article about which you make "no claim that all of the material was true", I will block your account from editing. Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well this is a scam. The article was written from a neutral point of view, and cited reliable sources. Consider yourself honored and privileged to have gotten a response out of me. Have a good life.

Hello, I'm Martin of Sheffield. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Christianity have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
You've wasted enough of others' time here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)