User talk:StThomasMore

God
Hi - it's clear that you have very strong feelings on this subject and there seems to be some sort of edit war going on this page. However there is no activity on the talk page at all and I would like to ask you and KillerChihuahua to start a thread there so that others can get the hang of what the problem is. Often discussion, with other editors helping, can find the wording necessary to include all important information whilst preserving the NPOV that is essential for wikipedia. You will find that others of different religious views will read your edits with a much more open mind if they are worded carefully. I will be honest and say I'm an atheist, but an open minded one - I have good friends with very strong Christian views (both Catholic and Protestant) and we respect each others opinions and accept that we are all on our own path and must walk it the best that we can. I will be out and about the next couple of days but will catch up on the discussions when I can. I hope this dispute can be resolved without having to protect the article which is what will happen if these reverts carry on. I have also posted this on KillerChihuahua's page. Sophia 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted from my talk page

Thanks, I have asked several times for StThomasMore to post on the talk page, but he has not. As he is the one who desires to change the article, he is the only one who can present his reasoning. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Just making sure you are aware of the WP:3RR rule. Do not revert more than 3 times in any 24 hours. Please note you do not have to revert more than 3 times in order to be blocked if your editing is considered disruptive, if you are edit warring. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not know. StThomasMore 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, but now you do. Wikipedia can be hard to get used to - on less controversial articles you usually simply make an edit and see what happens. If someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page and discuss, and after you reach consensus (see WP:CON), edits are made or not made accordingly. On controversial topics (such as God, Abortion, etc) it is often more productive if you make your case, so to speak, on the talk page before making any significant changes to the article. Post your suggested change, and wait for response. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring and violation of 3RR. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines, specifically: KillerChihuahua?!? 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:EW
 * WP:CON

WP:NOT
Would you please be so kind as to read WP:NOT? In this policy, you might see why your attempted Bowdlerism of the Truth article via the removal of the image is both inappropriate and a violation wityh policy. Additionally, a brief stroll (re-stroll?) through the WP:NPOV article might prove beneficial given your edits on other pages. Basically, your edit-warring and overall behaviour on various articles is becoming quite disruptive and will, at a point in the not very distant future, force the Wiki community to take action by proceeding with an WP:RfC. Generally speaking, most Wiki community members would prefer to avoid the RfC process, so I'm hoping that if you read the links I have provided, and take a little time to contemplate your actions, you might be spared such unpleasantness. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits
Your edits thus far to Wikipedia have been disruptive, argumentative, have been strongly biased in favor of your personal point of view, breaking several policies. Several editors have attempted to discuss this with you, with extremely limited and non-helpful responses from you. Your recent edit to Theological virtues broke the internal link; you changed the English word without changing the Greek which rendered the entry nonsensical at best and completely inaccurate at worst; you made these changes according to your own dogma in which you strongly believe, violating WP:NPOV yet again. I have posted links to these policies and guidelines multiple times (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:CON, WP:RS etc.) and if your editing pattern is anything to go by you have read none of them.

Evangelists of any persuasion are welcome on Wikipedia. Evangelizing is not. Strive towards Truth on another venue; WP strives towards verifiably accurate, NOT Truth. The reason is simple:

Truth is subjective, not objective.

To a Muslim, Jesus was just another one of God's prophets and Mohammad was his final and greatest prophet; to a Christian Jesus was the only son of God, the redeemer; to an atheist he is a myth that people like to believe in. All of these views represent Truth to those who hold them. If we allow Truth, we open the door to fanatics edit warring madly. And it isn't just religion; it is everything from whether abortion is moral to which musical artist was the greatest in their field to which episode of SouthPark best highlights the political satire the series is known for.

Hence, verifiability and neutral point of view. I can verify and state clearly, with sources, different views from different groups, being careful to not present the views in a biased fashion - see WP:NPOV#Undue weight - and not presume to know Truth, because all I can ever know is my very personal version of the Truth. The same is true for every human - you may agree on some things, but you do not agree on the Truth about everything with any one person.

If you wish to improve articles on your particular sub sect of Roman Catholicism, I support your efforts. If you continue to edit multiple general articles to conform to your personal belief system, you will not only not have support you will be considered a disruptive POV pusher and even a vandal. If you have questions, if you need help, I am more than happy and available. Do not continue to flout policy and vandalize WP to promote your personal belief system. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"B.V.M." listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect B.V.M. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. V27t (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Angelic Salutation" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelic_Salutation&redirect=no Angelic Salutation] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)