Ninth Centurion
May 2019 edit
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Merit (Christianity). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Wham2001 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to relate to this edit. As I said in my edit summary there, please see MOS:NOTED. Perhaps some rewording is needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Violation of Wikipedia edit
On Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC) deleted a valid, non discussion, and fully factual addition to the page. Ninth Centurion (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Which he was well within his right to do. Also see WP:Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language, which was cited when the edit was reverted. Wikipedia is not the place to go into the reeds on a given faith or sect's tenets and rules. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
What? -> “Wikipedia is not the place to go into the reeds on a given faith or sect's tenets and rules.” The whole point of the tread is the “reeds” of the topic of Merit. Besides, citing where the ONLY authoritative source of the definition of Merit is not going into the reeds - it is stating the most fundamental truth on the topic FOR THAT SECTION OF THE PAGE (which dealt with the Catholic deffiniton and teachings regarding Merit). So whoever deleted the section and claimed the entry was going into the “reeds” is either so ignorant they are undeserving of being an editor or are evil liars seeking to suppress facts central to correctly defining the issue.
No wonder Wikipedia is going around begging for money - it’s become a place of intellectual garbage and ideological narrowness.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that, by necessity of being written for a general audience as opposed to the potentially-religious audience your edits are more geared towards, deals with its topics in a "broad strokes" fashion and sticks to what reliable sources say. And honestly, that entire article could do with much better sources. But two people reverted your edits on Merit, with one of them outright inviting you to discuss the issues on the talk page, and you responded with pointless legal thuggery in responce to that, frankly very friendly, request. This is about as un-Christian as you can get (Matthew 7:3-5, Ephesians 4:32) and even if it were the Christian thing to respond disproportionately to a friendly request for dialogue, from a purely practical matter we have a vested interest in not allowing you to exacerbate the situation while legal action is ongoing or threatened. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Incident report notification edit
Per a requirement at WP:INCIDENT, I am notifying you here of a report I have made there of your recent legal threat here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I made no “legal threat” against Wikipedia, I stated I was going to consult my lawyer to take legal civil actions against Wtmitchell. No wonder Wikipedia is rapidly losing credibility - embedded ideologues suppress facts and truths, which are verifiable. Disgusting and very sad, Wikipedia used to be at least a source where people could find basic facts.
- Legal threats against editors are just as forbidden as legal threats against Wikipedia, and for good reason. You're not doing yourself any favours doubling-down on the legal threat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)