Amish 01

With regard to your edits at Voltaire

Please understand that the source you are citing is a copy of a long-superseded version of a Wikipedia article and cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. If you persist in restoring your edit, it is likely that you will be blocked from editing. Deor (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Voltaire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From Voltaire; quote: "There is an apocryphal story that this house was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing bibles, and has since been proven true due to recent research." There is nothing supposedly "apocryphal" about this. It is a fact which was correctly edited and sourced only to be removed with threats in error. Amish

revert

I recently undid your edit to Condoleezza Rice because you did not give a reason for removing content from a section. Please explain your edit. Thank you, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Slavery in Virginia

Hi there, I see you've added some info about slavery in Virginia. I'm not sure we need to note that the Spanish had previously used African slaves on this article because they didn't previously use them in Virginia. It also comes off as we'd be saying something like "well they started it" as some sort of excuse for enslavement. Anyway, that info could surely go on an article about slavery in general, but I don't think it goes on the state's page.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As it was written it stated: "Virginia started slavery in 1619", and they certainly did not. Where is the link showing anyone in Virginia imported Africans from Africa, and not just from trade with the Spanish? It is established slavery in North America began with the Spanish. Nobody is agruing Virginia began the practice in 1619. Amish

I'm not disagreeing that slavery existed before 1619, but I don't see what the Spanish, or Christopher Columbus, or any other historic slaveholding culture has to do with the Colony of Virginia. Are you trying to say that the very first slaves in Virginia came indirectly, such as through the Spanish Caribbean? I believe the "20 and odd" were from a Dutch ship which took them from the Portuguese. Anyway, I don't think we need to specify that, since the sentence isn't as much about the first slaves as it is more about introducing the idea that beginning in 1619 African slaves were used.

I also don't think that the article claims that Virginia started slavery. If you must have it say "imported to Virginia", that's fine, but since Virginia is the article's topic, I wouldn't think we'd need to specify, and feel the sentences around it make clear that the location is only the Virginia Colony.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for your help with this all. Amish 12:38, 4 Aug 2010 (CST)

Attacks on evolution

Re History of North America etc. - please stop inserting subtle challenges to Evolution. See WP:FRINGE. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are opposed to this correctly saying "Evolution Theory", instead of "traditional theory"? Unless you can give a valid reason why the sentence should be returned to the more accurate account. (Amish) 14:35, 8 Aug 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to History of the Earth. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. EW_ikist^Talk 14:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are opposed to this correctly saying "Evolution Theory", instead of "traditional theory"? Unless you can give a valid reason why the sentence should be returned to the more accurate account. (Amish) 14:39, 8 Aug 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from History of Slavery. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Joren (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AlbertoID.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AlbertoID.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:AlbertoID.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AlbertoID.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AlbertoIDback.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AlbertoIDback.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:AlbertoIDback.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AlbertoIDback.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Alberto Rivera. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Alberto Rivera, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Alberto Rivera. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

These templates should not be seen so much as a warning (though they are), but more as a message to help you understand what is wrong with your edits.Farsight001 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Alberto's photo ID is not original research and no styles were added to the article. Amish 05:40 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm losing patience. Just read the fucking policies already. They ARE relevant, even though you may not think so at first glance. And I 100% guarantee that you will be blocked from editing if you continue to stick it into the article like this. I've been down this road with editors just like you many many many times before. You don't understand policies, but you are convinced you do. Someone tries to help you, but you think they're trying to silence your voice. Unless you change your tune, you will get nowhere, so you need to figure out how to play the game properly. And once more, as I have already explained, we need an outside, reliable source, that confirms that it is in fact Alberto Rivera in the picture. The ID itself, as silly as it may sound, does not qualify. It is the very definition of original research that you personally declare it is him and add it to the article. See the relevant policy here : WP:OR, which I have already shown you once before. You will only get yourself blocked if you don't listen to other people when they try to offer you suggestions.Farsight001 (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not declare anything. The ID dated 1967 issued by Spain says Alberto Rivera on it.Amish 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, we cannot use the ID for what it says. We need ANOTHER source to support the veracity of the ID. Without one, it qualifies as what wikipedia calls "original research". I have explained this multiple times now. Your choice to ignore this is only going to count against you in the end.Farsight001 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The copywrite license editors disagree with your opinions and have thankfully authorized the ID for use in articles. You should take the issue up with them.Amish 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While I see no indication that the "copywrite license editors" have approved it for use in articles, that is mostly irrelevant. Approval of an image does not mean that the image never requires sourcing to support it's authenticity. Were Alberto as famous as, for example, the pope, no confirmation that a picture claimed to be of him actually IS of him. However, with Alberto, as I have already explained, the authenticity of the ID is in question. I will also add that the picture in the ID, frankly, doesn't look much like Rivera. What guarantee do we have that it is the same person? This is why I have tried to get through to you that a source is needed. I don't expect you to be willing to listen or to realize that I actually know what I'm talking about here, but at least no one can blame me for not trying when your account is inevitably blocked for your behavior.Farsight001 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring / 3RR. Reported to administrators

Amish 01, please be advised that your recent edit warring and disruptive behaviour has been brought to the attention of the Wikipedia administrators. Thank you. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We welcome all admin to review the work on relevant pages. It is you and your actions, including unreliable sources in the Seventh-day Adventist eschatology that need looking at by any admin. The use of a former Adventist Desmond Ford and select individuals to then claim a consensus view of Adventist eschatology is not credible. I would have reported You and Farsight001 much sooner if the reporting form wasn't so complicated. Your failure to allow any correction or sourced edits without reason has resulted in a back and forth, primarily on your part after sourced edits and cross links were added, choosing to dictate your own personal revision.Amish08:40, 31 August 2010

For your information, Desmond Ford is not a "former" Adventist. He still worships in the Adventist church and has done so ever since he lost his job as a pastor. Your edits are not "sourced". Linking to self-published sites does not count as "sourcing". Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking through your list of contributions and your talk page makes it clear that you are a chronically disruptive editor pushing a sectarian view. There is no evidence that you are committed to the key policies of Wikipedia namely NPOV, no original research, verifiability etc. You have made no attempt to engage with the criticism of your editing made by myself an others. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazing Discoveries logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazing Discoveries logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AlbertoIDback.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AlbertoIDback.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 30 June 2013 (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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your 2014 addition to The Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory

While it looks like you're mostly gone from Wikipedia, maybe you still get notifications. I'm hoping so, because I'd like an explanation for this edit you added two years ago. I mean, front to back, this was mind-bogglingly bad and at that point, you'd had several hundred edits so you should have known better. RunnyAmiga (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amish 01. 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 2017 election voter message

Hello, Amish 01. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)