User talk:EnochBethany

EVEN IF WIKIPEDIA IS CONCERNED ABOUT 2NDARY SOURCES, RATHER THAN "TRUTH," THERE ARE HIGHER PRINCIPLES THAN WIKIPEDIA & WIKI-LAWYERS. THOSE PRINCIPLES MEAN THAT WE SHOULD STATE THE TRUTH, NOT JUST REPEAT LIES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN 2NDARY SOURCES. REMEMBER THAT I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE; NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME. REGARD FOR TRUTH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WIKIPEDIA RULES.

PRINCIPLES OF THIS TALK PAGE 1. Everyone have a happy day and refrain from posting insults. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

2. Do not post any claims of edit-warring when I add content with citation(s) to an article and you yourself are the only one who did any reverting. The reverter is the edit-warrior. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC))

3. Kindly refrain from posting antagonistic posts about what I said on a talk page. Conduct the debate on the talk page where I interacted with the post there, not here. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

4. Wikilawyering ist verboten. "Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning." (EnochBethany (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC))

5. Kindly refrain from posting anything on this talk page which has nothing to do with improving a Wikipedia article. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

6. Talk pages do not require citations. Someone complained about posting questions about the article, claiming that asking the question was a defamation; for crying outloud. (EnochBethany (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

7. Because you may have a group of buddies who support each other with your agenda, that does not make your agenda righteous nor correct. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2015 (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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War / 'Syrian 21st century war'

Hi, please see my new posting on Talk:Syrian Civil War#Is the title correct, "Civil War"?. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop with the fringe living persons violations. Dave Dial (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The same goes for Talk:Frank Marshall Davis. Just stop. Jonathunder (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You were given warnings directly above. You chose to remove the warnings and add the information on your talk page that you were warned about. As a result, you are blocked.

Any administrator is welcome to unblock you (without consulting me) provided that you state that you understand the message Gamaliel placed just above this and that you agree not to make such edits again. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule:

"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes

Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material." I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=No defamation occurred. And I did no editing to the article after the warning. The alleged grounds are what I put on my talk page, which constituted no disruption to Wikipedia whatsoever. Cleaning the offensive & unjust bloiler plate off my talk page was no crime & no disruption. Adding this statement ON MY OWN TALK PAGE without reference to any person or article was no violation of any known Wikipedia rule: ''"Interesting How Persons Get So Heated Over Their Political Heroes'' ''Adding the word "possibly" in front of a claim of parentage, when there is no actual evidence of who the father is, is not adding poorly sourced material.''" I did not receive any warning about posting on my own talk page, & the out of context statement above pertains to no particular person or article. The statement is false that "You chose to . . . add the information on your talk page that you were warned about." I did not add the information about which I was warned. I said nothing in my statement about any person whatsoever; I just posted a principle. The statement on my own talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia. Is any administrator interested in fairness & justice? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(EnochBethany (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC))