User talk:Theanswerman63

Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions
I see you have reverted an edit with the rationale "Worthy quotes and sources were deleted without good reason." The reason given was that a "better source" is needed other than a site that markets pilgrimages to Medjugorge. If you had noticed the tag you would have seen that. It is impossible to know if these are "worthy quotes" absent a Reliable Source, which it is clear medjugorje.org is not. At best, what you have posted is unverified hearsay. Please provide a Reliable Source (please see WP:RS). (And who exactly is Father John Chisholm?) Mannanan51 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

edit war
With this edit you are now now at 3RR, and thus are in danger of edit warring. If you make one more revert that woulds be edit warring. Do not revert and instated make your case at the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Also please read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings: thank you for your comment. Please read the wiki parameters for edit warring. You will see that four reverts over a 24-hour period constitutes edit warring. We have been editing this article for the past month (since Aug. 5th), so please understand that editors have the right to delete or correct information that may be misleading. One of the citations goes to no web page at all, another goes to a source not considered to be encyclopedic, etc. In addition, the information in that paragraph is covered in the article and does not constitute any information that was discussed or considered at the time of the event. Theanswerman63 (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje
You have been deleting reliable skeptic sources from this article and giving no valid reason in your edit summaries. Please do not do that again. Use the talk-page if you have any concerns. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Miracle of the Sun shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2019
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Efficacy of prayer seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Tgeorgescu. Please make sure you take suggestions to the Talk Page before reverting a paragraph edit of mine. Theanswerman63 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Efficacy of prayer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Efficacy of prayer have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Efficacy of prayer, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Efficacy of prayer 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

With this [] you are edit warring, make a case at the article talk page. I also note this is not your frost warning for edit warring, I am going to suggest that if you are reported you will get a block of some length.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I also haved to say some of your edit summerise appear to be slightly misleaidgin, thius [] added material it did not correct mistakes or grammar (which implies no contextual changers).Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history I think you also need to read wp:nothere and wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Colette of Corbie. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read your edits at the article and I've read your talk page. The wording you are using is a clear violation of our NPOV policy and if you continue to violate our policy and I see it you'll be blocked. I also hope I don't see any more new editors whose first edit is to support you. Doug Weller  talk 19:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)