84.1.18.182

April 2023

Your recent editing history at John 1:1 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; read about 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—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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no "edit war", you have a bit overracted, pal... 84.1.18.182 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at John 1:1, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You practically banned me from editing on one page unilaterally in advance, you treat all my edits as destructive from the outset, and you use argumentum ad baculum, and now you are guarding the article like a watchdog... fantastic... Did you notice that not every sentence has a source marked from the beginning? Citation means that an encyclopedia should be linked to every half-sentence 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Even if you say those have all sources, you are still keeping mum about two of your four posited sources. Sometimes sources can be identified if you name their title, author or authors, and publication year. You grudgingly did that for two of the sources, and I'm waiting to tell us what the other two sources really are. By simply Googling "Encyclopedia of Religion" I could not find out which book you mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Religion [New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987] 84.1.18.182 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#John 1:1. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Council of Jerusalem, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Source is Denzinger 84.1.18.182 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Galileo Galilei, you may be blocked from editing. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Drmies (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not "disupting" Wikipedia, but brining useful additional informations, ehh. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's that the Talk page is useful for, isn't it? 84.1.18.182 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

That's not how it works, and I think you know that. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Galileo affair. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Since when it's called "vandalizing", when one adds on-topic useful informations to the Talk page? 84.1.18.182 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not what you did. It's neither on-topic nor useful. You can go examine the case of Galileo on another website, maybe Reddit, but not here. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not on-topic? Was the topic about Galileo? What I have inserted was about cooking? Or dogbreeding? No. It was about Galileo, so it was on-topic.

Not useful? Really? Was it useless BS? No, maybe a bunch of new informations, to be incorporated to text.

It's as if your fellow caveman brought home a mammoth to be processed by the tribe, and you throw it out on the snow. Congratulations. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What I'm about to write is not for you, but for any future onlookers who might not be fully aware of WP:NOTFORUM, not as aware as you should be. Your lengthy comments were about Galileo, but the topic of the talk page is not Galileo: it's the Wikipedia article on Galileo. Nothing you had to say directly and helpfully addressed the article or how to improve it. It's the same with your other contributions, almost all of which have been reverted: you are simply not here to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of your intentions. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, you would see that it is about Galileo and nothing else. Not a "forum", not destruction, but a contribution to the encyclopedia. I wrote it so that they contribute to common knowledge, and you are hindering this with such formalistic stuttering. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Note

Note that Viviani does not mention the phrase "Eppur si muove". The first to mention it was Baretti, in 1757. Caution is needed when referring to Galileo. See the English Wikipedia article entitled "And yet it moves". K456k456 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---