3abos

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Heterophobia, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Heterophobia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Josh3580_talk/hist 00:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping to keep Wikipedia growing! About your edits to the Heterophobia page... they seemed like WP:NPOV violations to me, as there is a definite political slant to the content you added. It was mostly argumentative and not very informative. Also, I don't understand why any additional information couldn't be added to the existing subsection of the Homophobia article, instead of recreating this previously discussed and deleted article, without any prior discussion with the community.Josh3580_talk/hist 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have once again reverted your edits. You are listing sources, but while they all describe events, they don't arrive at the conclusions outlined in your article body. Drawing your own conclusions from verifiable sources is still considered Original Research, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Josh3580_talk/hist 00:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

do not revert, there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard3abos (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (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 to Heterophobia with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Eyesnore (pending changes) 00:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, 3abos. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Heterophobia. Josh3580_talk/hist 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Heterophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting Heterophobia to Homophobia is a violation of neutrality. Please proceed to the article's talk page to discuss 3abos (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 3abos. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Josh3580_talk/hist 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia#Treatment

I had to revert [edit] because of a copyright violation (a simple technicality), but that is a great example of a good WP:NPOV source! Try to paraphrase the information without adding opinion, and you've got it! Thank you so much for working with us on this... It's a touchy subject, and we have to be careful.Josh3580_talk/hist 06:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ignatius Joseph III Yonan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mor

Syriac Catholic Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anamnesis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Heterophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heterophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Heterophobia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on closed AfDs

Hi, 3abos. Per WP:AFD policy, you may not comment on an AfD once the discussion has concluded. If you think that there were procedural errors in the discussion, and think the conclusion should be reversed, you're welcome to file at Deletion review, but I'll warn you right now that such a request would be very unlikely to be successful. Additionally, your comments concern be somewhat, as they border on soapboxing/POV-pushing. Repeated attempts to promote certain biases in Wikipedia often lead to users being blocked for tendentious editing and not being here to build an encyclopedia. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your bias on here. please stop harassing me, i do not appreciate your heterophobic nature. 3abos (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you I'm not scared of straight people. Some of my best friends are straight. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"some of my best friends are straight" this is the same rhetoric from heterophobes. Even when they start calling us abnormal "Some of my best friends are straight, but i don't think they're normal". http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/being-straight-no-longer-normal-students-taught/story-e6freuzi-1226497360980. Please cease your heterophobia 3abos (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't think heterosexuality is any more normal than homosexuality, but that's neither here nor there. Your remarks toward me are ad hominem, and I strongly encourage you to cease making them. If you want to debate gay rights with me, come on over to ##PinkAmpersand ^connect on IRC – it's one of my favorite issues, and I love some friendly disagreement. But I can't stress enough that Wikipedia is not the place to try to advance your own political beliefs. All edits must adhere to the neutral point of view policy; if you really aren't comfortable with that, you might want to try Conservapedia. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not care about "gay rights" quite frankly anyone who is "gay" shouldn't be demanding rights as they are already "gay" ie happy. Nevertheless, my worry is heterosexual rights and your tone is incredibly heterophobic. You come on my page and be hateful and heterophobic, then you tell me to go debate you elsewhere. Can YOU please stop harassing me with your vile, hateful tone. I do not appreciate it. 3abos (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me be more direct

If you make any more responses that consist of trying to promote your political views, if you accuse me or anyone else of being "heterophobic" once again, if you continue to use hyperboles like "disgusting", "vile", and "hateful", I will report you to the Administrators' noticeboard on incidents and request that you be blocked. This will serve as your last warning.

If you'd like to politely request that I stop editing this talk page, that is your right, but if you continue to disrupt the project, I think you'll find yourself facing an indefinite block. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

once again, please stop threatening me it is very heterophobic, if it is heterophobia you suffer please see treatments http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/library/heterophobia/. Stop being hateful towards me, i do not appreciate it. Please stop harassing me and stop posting on my page. 3abos (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Think I've played nice long enough. Thank you. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

once again, cease your heterophobia and stop harassing me and stop editing my page. 3abos (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Hello 3abos, I am a Wikipedia Administrator. I've been drawn here by a discussion about you on the administrator's noticeboard. I am not encouraged by your comments above that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Particularly, your calling others heterophobes and saying that they are "calling us abnormal." This is going to be your only warning on the subject, if it's done again you will be indefinitely blocked.--v/r - TP 03:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

dear T i do not know what you are talking about? i ahve asked the specific user to stop harassing me, stop editing my page and stop being heterophobic towards me multiple times. yet he/she still keeps editing my page. if you take a look at my edit history as well you will realise that i have contributed greatly to many other pages other than Heterophobia. But i guess you have not. i do not see why i am being persecuted. I am not sure why this is the case, is it because i am a heterosexual? or because of my ethnic background? 3abos (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, and I'm another admin, and I'm here to tell you the same thing. Such comments, such claims of persecution, only serve to antagonize other editors (besides the fact that they're ludicrous). For instance, I like some straight people, like my wife for instance, yet I'm telling you that the Heterophobia article was total rubbish. The best thing you can do is to drop such talk, just drop it altogether, and continue working on topics where you can be a positive influence. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

St Mary's Cathedral

I'm pasting here my advice to new users.

Your edit to the Introduction of this article indicates that you added information and saved it without reading it to see if the sentence actually made sense.

"In 2008 the cathedral celebrated World Youth Day, with a visit from the Pope and the Patriarch in 2013."

OK, so you are telling us what? The the Pope and the Patriarch came to celebrate World Youth Day in 2008? so why have you tagged the date 2013 on the end of the sentence.

NOTE: you have listed the names of two people with nothing between them except the word "and". That puts them together at the same event.

Please read what you write!

Secondly, please don't add bleary crooked photos that convey very little info.

And please don't put pictures, including good ones, into sections of articles where they don't belong.

AJM's advice to new editors

• Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
• Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
• Search for the right place to put it.
• Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
• Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
• Be aware
  • that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
  • that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

• Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
• Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
• Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
• Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
• Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
• Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
• Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
• Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Just two points. What i meant to say was 1. the Pope and Patriarch arrived at TWO different times. that is, the Patriarch arrived in 2013 and a Patriarch in the Catholic Church is one level lower than the Pope. 2. the picture I put shows the interior of the church with the high altar with Mass being celebrated ad orientum. I thought this would be a good picture as there aren't any other suitable ones online that show this. I will be awaiting your advice and reply for these two edits. Thanks. 3abos (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

3abos, I saw this advice earlier this morning and thought it a bit stern in its tone. Amandajm has edited the article some and it still includes the information you added, which was useful even if not formulated perfectly--but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia: things can be tweaked. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for your advice and encouraging words.3abos (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The info about the patriarch has been separated from the sentence about World Youth Day and put down into the History. I created a section on events since 2000 as there was another part of the History that conveniently went under that heading as well.

While what Drmies has said above is true, don't underestimate that problems that can be cause to an article by adding solid information without checking to see if it is in the right place. It is possible to add a completely factual sentence that turns the paragraph into which one has added it into total and absolute nonsense. Here is an example:

"The church organ was built by Walker and sons in 1878 and has 1500 pipes. It was electrified in 1930 and the bellows were replaced with a fan driven by an electric motor. There is a lunchtime organ recital every Thursday at 12.30. This is located in the plantroom of the toolshed outside the south transept."

The intrusive sentence is the one marked in boldface.

What happens in this sort of instance is that a page-watcher looks at the sentence itself and see that it is factual and not a vandalism. So they leave it. Another editor comes along and makes an edit to a different part of the article, and the troublesome edit slips further down the History, until it is buried, and not noticed until someone reads the paragraph thoroughly and thinks "That is ridiculous!". Then, instead of deleting the intruding sentence, they delete the sentence that follows, because the recital information is valuable general information and it is obvious that the recital doesn't take place in the plantroom of a toolshed. On the other hand, a person with an interest in historic organs or 1930s electric motors, (while in a minority) will want to know about the motor in the plantroom.

For this sort of reason I cannot stress enough that editors look and read before adding. And again, before leaving the page.

You just added a message to my talk page, telling me that I had a message here. You added it to the top of the talk page, above the permanent stuff. That is exactly the sort of point that I am making, since I know that you know that messages on people's talk page go at the bottom, not the top of the page.

Amandajm (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually sorry i am unaware. I will keep this in mind for next time. In regard to the picture, i believe it is worthwhile to add a picture of the high altar with Mass being celebrated ad oreintum using the front altar. what are your thoughts on this? 3abos (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a picture of the sanctuary. As I said to you before, a small crooked blurry picture is not really very useful, unless the subject matter is of great importance. For example, if the nun who found the body of Pope John Paul I sitting in his bed dead, had taken out her cellphone and got a shot a shot of the scene, then that would be a small crooked blurry photo that was of enough significance to be in a Wikipedia article. But a small crooked blurry photo of the back view of someone unidentifiable at a church service that was of local significance but not of earth-shattering importance simply isn't significant enough to be in the article.

Don't take this personally. The majority of the pictures in the article were mine and I have deleted them as better quality pictures (mostly by other photographers) have become available.

Amandajm (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Contributions at DRV

This is a friendly note to draw your attention to a couple of cultural issues at DRV that you need to be careful not to ignore:-

• Firstly, DRV does not allow itself to be used as a platform for personal attacks. DRVs that are used for that purpose are generally closed early and the perpetrator gets their arguments heavily discounted.
• Secondly, DRV has a single purpose, which is examining the process of a close and checking that the closing admin has used any discretion appropriately. It is not for making POINTY comments, arguing external disagreements, fighting a battle or general trolling. DRVs that are used for that purpose also tend to get closed early.

I have been sorely tempted to close this DRV early on several occasions. Your behaviour at DRV is uncollegiate, argumentative and redolent of a battlefield mentality. I have cut you slack because you are a new user but I think you need to be aware of how close your commentary has been on occasions to causing the closing of the discussion. Please cut it out and concentrate on discussing the process of the close and the exercise of discretion only. Extraneous matters are entirely irrelevant and I will not hesitate to close if I feel the discussion is being misused. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

hello, can you please give me an example where i have "personally attacked anyone"? I believe quite the opposite has been the case. Anyway, how long does it usually take for a resolution? 3abos (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DRVs run for a week before being closed unless there is a good reason to shut them earlier. We tend not to "snow close" as we feel that on the appeal page process has to be followed but I have already alluded to good reasons why discussions can close early. In your nomination page you used battlefield terms like "persecuted" and accused the deletion of showing extreme bias. Both of these assertions use very strong language and are unevidenced. They also show strong evidence of a battlefield mentality. Your next contribution was trolling and pointy - arguing about the use of the term Gay for happy or Homosexual. That's completely irrelevant to the discussion in hand and is again polemical language and redolent of a battlefield mentality. Your final contribution is attacking the motives of other users why claiming that contributions are political and non-neutral. That is again polemical, unevidenced aspersions, redolent of a battlefield mentality and probably quite illuminating of how you see this discussion in your own mind. It is also quite unfair on users who mostly don't have a dog in this fight and who are making reasonable policy based evaluations of this article, the discussion and the process. For you to attack them because you don't like the way this is going is absolutely not what DRV is about. In essence you made 3 contributions to this DRV and all 3 were problematic but now you have been warned and its not going to happen again, is it?

None of those are "personal". I simply followed the tone that was taken previously by others who were calling me "homophobic" etc and the fact that the page itself was removed because of Political reasons.Due to this I thought there was room to move in the "neutrality spectrum". I assume you have spoken to others who have attacked me as well, but if you haven't, never-mind no harm done. It seems that the community and admins have already made up their minds about this whole saga anyway. Which is a shame. 3abos (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of arguing the toss with you. It is not necessary for you to agree with what I'm saying, its enough for you to understand that in an administrative action in connection to being the most regular closer of DRV discussions I am notifying you with issues concerning your editing that will have consequences for your DRV if you continue. Its entirely down to you whether or not you heed the warning but at least you won't be able to say you weren't warned if you choose to make another disruptive edit to the discussion. I also forecast an extremely short Wikipedia career for you since you seen to be unable to avoid equating disagreement with politics and persecution. That is not a good starting point for a project that is based on collaborative editing and frank exchanges of opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles and direct quotes should be left intact

I've reverted one of your edits to LGBT rights opposition because it changed the title of a work. Direct quotations and titles should have their wording preserved exactly. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to do this but no one is debating with me. 3abos (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe have some patience, I guess. And check out Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you were (repeatedly!) reverted, now let the discussion take place. It's not going to happen as quickly as you would apparently like, but let it occur. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It just seems rather inconsistent though and not neutral though. please see talk page for the article. 3abos (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Hello, 3abos, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive contributor. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Homophobia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

3abos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edits were sourced properly? did you have a look at them yourself? They were even discussed on the talk page 3abos (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

And that's not why you were blocked. Please actually read the block template above and the guide to appealing a block before wasting anyone else's time, thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would suggest that you remove your request, read appeal this block and try again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my reason. I will just have to cop the 48 hours then begin to contribute to wikipedia again i guess (which if you have a look expands more than just a few pages)....I am doing time for a crime i did not commit. 3abos (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

you are doing time for violating the WP:3RR rule, which it is most manifest that you did. See you in 48 hours, hopefully with a new attitude and approach or the next time will be longer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New attitude? I am the one with the correct attitude, i am contributing on wikipedia on a wide variety of pages, using references and all...take a look at my history. I undid the revisions based on conversations on the talk page... Isn't this what wikipedia is all about? 3abos (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia which presents content from reliable sources without the interpretations or opinions of the editors in a manner that represents how the subject is viewed by experts through a collaborative editing process which works by consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, that is enough for me. Everywhere you have edited you have been disruptive with a refusal to engage properly, not listening, pushing your own POV and basically refusing to play nicely in a way that stops productive editors getting on with it. I have blocked you indefinitely. You can appeal the block when you understand why your behaviour has caused problems and are ready to contribute collaboratively. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What kind of persecution is this? Take a look at my history? I have contributed to many other pages on wikipedia. My block should only remain 48 hours. I spoke nicely to everyone it may not have come out as so because of different cultures across the globe, but may i remind you that this is "english wikipedia" not "western wikipedia" and that cultural differences may exist when communicating between people. I find this extremely discriminatory! 3abos (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

3abos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My time be back to 48 hours. The original block. I wish to contribute to the other pages i have been on wikipedia. 3abos (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block, as you have been told, is now of indefinite duration, which means that you will only be unblocked when you can convince the community that your editing here will avoid the behaviour which caused your block.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What will be different this time? Can you explain what was wrong with your editing before, and how are you intending to avoid these problems in the future, if unblocked? Max Semenik (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• 3abos, it seems to me, after a quick perusal of this talk page, that your point of view is seriously getting in the way of becoming (or being) a productive editor here. I can't speak for Spartaz, of course, or for the many other editors and administrators who have visited this page, but if I were to consider unblocking (this is hypothetical since I won't consider an unblock request, having already been a bit involved with your case) I might do so only on the condition that you stay away from the entire LGBT area, in the broadest sense of the word. In addition, this edit-warring has to stop, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider an unblock myself until 3abos starts to show a little more self awareness of the impact of their behaviour on other users. Perusal of this link could be the start of a long journey to self awareness... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • My contributions to wikipedia on Basile Georges Casmoussa, Ignatius Joseph III Yonan and Syriac Catholic Church to just name a few do not warrant an "indefinite" block. However, it seems that the community's "neutrality spectrum" is shifted to a scale regarding LGBTTIQQ2S( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited) articles that is not neutral at all. As such i will refrain from editing articles until there is enough consensus that what is "Neutral" becomes accepted by the Majority of editors (Which is believe isn't a basis for neutrality in the first place). I will also refrain from reverting pages thrice in one day (even though i only did this because my work got thrashed as soon as it got published anyway). 3abos (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Your comments wouldn't convince me to unblock you. On the one hand, you say you will refrain from editing certain articles, but on the other hand, the reason you would refrain is because you disagree with what constitutes neutrality on Wikipedia. Worse, your promise, which is more of an attack than a promise, is qualified by some future interpretation of neutrality by some hypothetical editor majority. Finally, your comment about edit-warring is equally passive-aggressive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Look my friend. I don't think u should be affected by emotions when analysing this case. What is being defined as neutral is simply a vote of the majority, this is what has happened it is not a "hypothetical". Either way: If you unblock me I will contribute to the pages i have been and refrain from editing LGBTTIQQ2S (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited) articles. If you don't unblock me, so be it. 3abos (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • The suggestion that there is no neutrality, only a dictatorship of the majority, is battleground stuff. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
            • We will have to then agree to disagree. I will leave LGBTTIQQ2S (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited) articles alone. 3abos (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

3abos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can i please be unblocked. I shall stay away from these certain pages that create a storm. I also need to add content to other pages. 3abos (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see absolutely zero understanding that your previous edits and behaviour were improper - indeed, the problems were apparently caused by everyone else's version of "neutral" and not yours. This is a WP:NOTTHEM argument that is wholly unsuccessful. The guide to appealing blocks is quite clear that you need to show two things: understanding of the protective reason for the block, and b) clear proof that the poor behaviour will not recur at any time. Your self-imposed restrictions are a start, but you're nowhere close to the ballpark with the rest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Anyone out there?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

3abos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

understanding of the protective reason for the block The reason for the block was my continual reverting of edits. clear proof that the poor behaviour will not recur at any time The proof is that i wont touch these certain articles. 3abos (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

From reading your talk page, I get the distinct impression that you've been pretty much controversy-free except on LGBT-related topics, and it sounds like you're topic-banning yourself from the subject. As long as you're not getting into controversy elsewhere and as long as you heed your self-ban, I expect things will go well for you. Since this isn't a formal ban, you won't necessarily be warned or blocked for editing LGBT-related subjects, but I urge you extremely hard to heed your self-imposed topic ban — if you don't, you'll probably end up getting blocked again, and you'll have a yet harder time getting unblocked then. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you good Sir! 3abos (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 3abos. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Social justice

Please don't make WP:POINTy edits. There are links to Social Justice in the Progressivism and Green politics navigation templates. You know there is no such link in the Conservatism template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

how does one add it to the template? 3abos (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First, one must determine that it's appropriate to add it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

yes it is. 3abos (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Disengaging from LGBT articles doesn't mean that its OK to import the same mindset across to other articles. Your edits to Social Justice are showing exactly the same problems that got you blocked before. I would have hoped that you would have been on your guard to avoid further problems. Lets be clear here. Its not OK to make unsourced edits to subjects that change the focus or direction of that article in a way that displays a political POV. Its not OK edit war againt an established consensus when another editor objects. Its not OK to continue to make the same edits when there is a discussion ongoing and its definitely not OK to just ignore the views of other editors because you disagree with them. POINTyness is disruptive. Pushing a POV is disruptive. Edit warring against an established consensus is disruptive. How about you slow down and avoid the controversy through discussion. If you don't... well you know where that's likely to lead. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I did on engage in an edit war. Please see talk page with the user and talk page on article.

2. I did not ignore the views of the editor, i simply engaged in debate with him/her i might reply late but that's because i have other things to do apart from wikipedia

3. I did not engage in controversy. We discussed things and the article was left in a state that both the other editor and I felt was reasonable. (the conservative navigation removed, picture of person were left and titles for people were left).

4. I find your post extremely aggressive and will give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it was made in Good Faith if it was not an apology is necessary.

3abos (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• As long as you have noted the warning its irrelevant whether you agree with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nasrani

Hi 3abos, I've reverted your edits to Nasrani as they were essentially a dictionary entry, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and we already have a disambiguation page at Nasrani (disambiguation). If you want to move that page you can start a move request suggesting it be moved to "Nasrani" over the redirect, but in my opinion the term "Nasrani" needs to redirect to Saint Thomas Christians as they're the primary topic. Thanks, --Cúchullain ^t/c 12:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Syriac Catholic Church

Hi 3abos, I'm glad to find someone interested in the Syriac Catholic Church. I am looking forward to work on te article to reach a WP:GA status, sources should be no problem since my local university has plenty of books on the subject. Please let me know if you are interested.--Kathovo talk 12:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kathovo,

I would be more than happy to help. If you don't mind me asking. What is your local university? and what are the resources available to you?

3abos (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! The one I mean is Radboud University, basically I can borrow most of the books present in their catalogue. You can contact me by email by going to my arcwiki page and choosing ܫܕܪ ܐܓܪܬܐ ܠܗܢܐ ܡܦܠܚܢܐ from the right menu.--Kathovo talk 09:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Shlomo! I could not find the required link. 3abos (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kathovo/sandbox/Syriac Catholic, here is my plan.--Kathovo talk 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

please see my modifications. 3abos (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Peter Comensoli

Your edits to the article for Bishop Peter Comensoli are erroneous.

I refer to Canon 409, specifically §2.:

Can. 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.
§2. When the episcopal see is vacant and unless competent authority has established otherwise, an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar while the see was filled until a new bishop has taken possession of the see. If he has not been designated to the function of diocesan administrator, he is to exercise this same power, conferred by law, under the authority of the diocesan administrator who presides offer the governance of the diocese.

— Canon 409

Thank you, James ^{(T • C)} • 7:35pm • 08:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thanks for your message.

the Canon says

an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar

as a vicar general or episcopal vicar, he never had the power to make appointments anyway. Only a Bishop of a diocese can do that.

Also, please see [| this ] from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis saying

The administrator is also prohibited by canon law from naming pastors of parishes. However, he is given authority to appoint pastors if no archbishop is named within a year of Archbishop Buechlein’s retirement.

3abos (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rector or Vice-Rector of the Seminary was approved in advance. All of his other appointments have been to appoint assistant priests and administrators of parishes, not parish priests. He has not named any pastors. James ^{(T • C)} • 11:13am • 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I have the document he signed which addressed the appointment of a new parish administrator in MY OWN parish. He states, quite clearly: "As Apostolic Administrator, I have no power to appoint parish priests as such. Therefore, my appointment will need to be confirmed by the new Archbishop when he is appointed." James ^{(T • C)} • 11:15am • 00:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See also this:

Until 1983 an apostolic administrator was seen as one who administrates a diocese in the name of the Pope. In instances where the local diocesan bishop was not capable of governing his diocese for a long period of time, and the duties to be fulfilled were more demanding than the office of a vicar general (a Catholic bishop's second in charge) the Pope, as supreme Pastor could appoint an apostolic administrator who would govern the diocese, not as diocesan bishop but rather on behalf of the Pope.

-- http://catholic-church.org/church-unity/apos_a_e.htm

And this:

"Unless it be otherwise stated in the brief of appointment, the administrator apostolic has full episcopal jurisdiction, although in its exercise he is bound by the same laws as the bishop himself. "

-- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm

James ^{(T • C)} • 11:20am • 00:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And Canon Law:

Can. 427 §1. A diocesan administrator is bound by the obligations and possesses the power of a diocesan bishop, excluding those matters which are excepted by their nature or by the law itself.

§2. When he has accepted election, the diocesan administrator obtains power and no other confirmation is required, without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in ⇒ can. 833, n. 4.

-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1H.HTM

James ^{(T • C)} • 11:23am • 00:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Were Bishop Peter acting in contravention of Canon Law, the Bishops Conference would have made a statement and the Pope would have summoned him to Rome. None of these have happened. The Catholic Weekly and similar Catholic news organisations have made no such reports. James ^{(T • C)} • 11:36am • 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Finally, this press release: http://mediablog.catholic.org.au/?p=2584 James ^{(T • C)} • 1:36 PM • 03:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please cease spamming my talk page. the ACBC has nothing to do with the function of the diocese. 3abos (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the fact that these appointments are not illicit. Not only have you failed to address the Canon I have quoted, you have also failed to show you understand Canon Law. I will not violate WP:3RR and thus have requested administrator help. James ^{(T • C)} • 1:52 PM • 03:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Admin comment: Adding negative unsourced opinion to an article on a living person violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Interpretation of documents have no place on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No original research so it not a matter of who is correct in their interpretation of the Canon, but that there are links in the article to Wikipedia:Reliable sources which say that Comensoli's action are inappropriate or illegal. Only if there are such sources which comment directly on this particular situation naming Comensoli can the information be included. Editors are forbidden from making negative assumptions about any living person on Wikipedia, and can only make negative statements when they are supported by multiple, reliable sources which comment directly and clearly on the incident and the individual. Repeated attempts to make accusations against Comensoli of illegal activity without appropriate sources will result in a block from editing Wikipedia. My suggestion is that 3abos seeks confirmation from another editor, such as M.O.X / James, before attempting to re-add that material, even with sources.

I am copying this discussion to the article talkpage so it is a matter of record. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 3abos. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sister Lúcia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)