User talk:Manila davao ph
Formatting
[edit]You really should review Wiki formatting before trying any more extensive revisions to articles. I've had to correct several you've worked on already. It's not an improvement if it makes the article unreadable. 24.4.253.249 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You also should learn how to sign your comments, where to leave them, and you are still rendering large parts of the articles unreadable because you're not using wiki code correctly. Furthermore, not every personal detail is relevant enough to be included - such as student body president. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a testimonial site for dead religious personalities. 24.4.253.249 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Article you started
[edit]A tag has been placed on Richard David D. Armstrong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Aboutmovies 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Richard Armstrong (pastor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --SarekOfVulcan 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto. Please, if Mr. Armstrong meets the WP:BIO guidelines, feel free to edit the article to indicate that. Mytildebang 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, the edit summary you used when you created the article was a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo 06:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article 3rd Infantry (Spearhead) Division / 3rd Infantry Division has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Violates WP:SOAP
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Minimac (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Herbert W. Armstrong. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Have a {{uw-3rr}} with an anti-Armstrong biased person(s) who keeps deleting pro-Armstrong groups and insists on villifying the man User:Ozark 8
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring noticeboard report
[edit]You have been reported for edit warring here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article under discussion is Herbert W. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The above 3RR report has been archived at [1]. Please note that all editors are expected to obey the edit-warring rules. Get consensus for changes that may cause disagreement on the article's Talk page. I am afraid that your comments on the article's talk page are not very understandable, for instance here:
full page protection for Herbert Armstrong from a biased organization and people who have problematic family histories who insist on unethically proving subject person wrong and villifying him.
- Are you accusing Wikipedia editors of having problematic family histories? Ask for assistance if you are not familiar with how our policy on WP:Reliable sources works. Your edits to the article have the air of WP:BATTLE which may cause concern here on Wikipedia. We aim to produce neutral articles, which reflect whatever reliable sources have written about the subject. We do not go out of our way to praise or vilify anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The man is dead for 24-years now and cannot defend himself. He is not a saint yet like the early Christian apostle Peter. Let us allow him room for errors and not allow redundancy in ex-members of his group from highlighting his mistakes. He quoted from the Bible more than any 21st century Christian evangelist like Grace Communion International founders. Read his life, work and writings. Let us allow the pro-Armstrong groups footnote space to defend the man.
http://www.ucg.org United Church of God http://www.lcg.org Living Church of God http://www.pcog.org Philadelphia Church of God http://www.cogaic.org Church of God Community http://www.cgi.org Church of God International http://www.intercontinentalcog.org Intercontinental Church of God http://www.cog.21.org Church of God-21st Century http://www.thercg.org Restored Church of God http://www.cogm.org Church of God Outreach Ministries http://www.bethelcog.org Bethel Church of God http://www.eternalgod.org Church of the Eternal God http://www.cogeternal.org Church of God, The Eternal http://cgg.org Church of the Great God http://cgfnw.org Church of God Fellowship http://www.childrenofgod.net Sabbath Church of God http://www.biblesabbath.org Bible Sabbath Association
Ozark8
- Please take a look at WP:Five pillars for our values. We do not have an 'equal time' principle allowing every group to have their say, or permitting specific people 'room for errors' because they are good people. There are no special dispensations allowing us to edit differently 'when people can no longer defend themselves.' If these are your priorities, they do not appear to fit well with the Wikipedia values. Instead, we use neutrality and reliable sources to decide what should go into articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Familiar with WP:Five pillars. Wikipedia is neutral, free content and no fixed rules. The problem with excluding pro-Armstrong groups is denying relationships. So suggest they not be deleted.
Ozark8
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
I have reported your violation of 3RR at Herbert W. Armstrong. Please stop edit warring against consensus.
- Please visit the 3RR report page if you wish to comment on the report I have made on this incident. LK (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
[edit]
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Manila davao ph reported by LK (talk) (Result: 72h). EdJohnston (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Manila davao ph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appeal this block because i am using this talk page about my actions. The article has to be improved of its redundancies. Am a victim of unilateralism and abuse of power. Ozark8
Decline reason:
Your contribution history shows that you have violated the three-revert rule, so the block is necessary. I don't see consensus, here or on the article talk page, that your desired edits should be made. When your block expires, remember that we avoid repeatedly undoing other users' edits- instead, we discuss our differences, decide together on what the best version of the article should say, and then make any changes that are needed. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (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.
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)- Note to reviewing admin -- I could be considered involved, but enough uninvolved editors and admins have tried to explain the problem here that I don't see the need to chase down any more of them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I appeal this block from the first place. SarekOfVulcan has a history of uncivility in Ireland and incompetence in editing redundant articles. So why make him a WP editor when this encyclopedia will get more enemies with him around?
Ozark8
Manila davao ph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Article redundancy on both sides of pro and anti@Further reading and video resources. Tried to seek consensus. Explained every edit.
Decline reason:
You appear to equate SEEKING consensus with OBTAINING consensus. They are not the same. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:12, 11 June 2010 (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.
Manila davao ph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
REDUNDANCY and CONTRADICTION in cited portion of page are facts. Facts are facts and speak for themselves, they do not need a cartel of consensus editors to be validated. Facts withstand the test of time
Decline reason:
With this kind of anti-WP:5P attitude and activity, I'm starting to believe that Wikipedia might not be the place best suited for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 12 June 2010 (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.
- (edit conflict) I would add that your unblock request does not discuss the reason you are blocked for. An unblock request should detail your own actions, and not the actions of others (And neither should they be comments about a certain article). The issue here is , as far as the unblock request is concerned: you, consensus seeking and WP:3RR, nothing else. Equally these kind of edits appear to show that you are not willing to discuss issues. In other words, i am not convinced that your block is no longer preventative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Manila davao ph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am here to improve wikipedia content. The cartel of editors who vandalized me for a WP:3RR and blocked me do no improvements for wikipedia. The facts here are "About Our Founder, Worldwide Church of God" which is displayed twice in "pro and anti@Further reading and video resources" footnotes. Appearance in wikipedia is therefore REDUNDANT and CONTRADICTORY. Common sense and the authority of Websters' dictionary, not arbitrary consensus ought to be the process here
Decline reason:
Part of improving the content here is working with other editors collaboratively here to determine the optimal material in an article. Working with others to gain consensus is critical. You seem to be indicating that you intend to edit war again to force your version on others, which leads me to believe that an unblock is a very poor idea at this time. Kuru (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2010 (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.
Manila davao ph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Objectivity of administrators enforcing this ban is questionable. The facts are REDUNDANCY and CONTRDICTION in previous cited portion of page. I dont care who gets the credit in improving this encyclopedia
Decline reason:
If you spent LESS time arguing and violating WP:NPA, and more time learning how to edit properly, you would have a) noticed that I have never even been to the articles you're interested in and am therefore 100% objective, and b) noticed that your block already expired. You're pushing for an indefinite block by your actions, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 13 June 2010 (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.
Nomination of Sabbatarian Churches of God for deletion
[edit]
The article Sabbatarian Churches of God is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbatarian Churches of God 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 good 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. Minimac (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Church of God, a Worldwide Association
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Church of God, a Worldwide Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)