User talk:Natemup

Welcome

Hello, Natemup! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

June 2013

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rachel without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Preacher, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laypeople and Evangelist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 March 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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Natemup. 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, Natemup. 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)

August 2018

Please do not add new statements immediately in front of citations that do not support the new statements. You did this in the article on Religion in Ukraine:[1]

As of 2016 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate has 12,334 officially registered churches, by far more than any other religion in Ukraine, though the Kievan Patriarchate has more members.

By putting the new statement (shown in red above) in front of the citation, you created the false illusion that the citation supported the new statement.

There are other problems.

1. The section was about Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate.
2. The new statement did not have a citation.

I have attempted to fix the problem:

As of 2016 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate has 12,334 officially registered churches, by far more than any other religion in Ukraine, (though the Kievan Patriarchate has more members).

If you do not come up with a citation for your new statement, it will be reverted sooner or later.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Natemup. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblical inspiration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Word of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Thomas Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac Patriarch of Antioch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent contributions at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious what exactly makes the content irrelevant. A bioscience company affiliated with Planned Parenthood and secretly recorded by the Center For Medical Progress in 2015—literally the topic of the Wikipedia article—was found to have committed the crime CMP accused them of. Why are you deleting this content? natemup (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://ocweekly.com/fetal-tissue-case-8636370/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. The content was removed by other users for reasons other than copyright. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Athens Academy

I wouldn't expect someone whose been here for 7 years would have so little knowledge of how we handle disputed new content. I didn't leave you a warning earlier per WP:DTTR. If a new addition you boldly made is reverted, the proper procedure is to follow WP:BRD by starting a discussion on the article talk page. It is never ok to just put it back and insist it's the correct solution. The solution isn't far off. I'm very dubious of the reliability of the website that published this op-ed, so I'll likely continue to dispute your change just based on that (see WP:RS. The fact it's an op-ed is also a problem. If the publication were reliable, all an op-ed can verify is its own opinion. We cannot state that as Wikipedia's opinion, which is what you are doing. With a source we can agree is reliable and an op-ed, we could state it "according to X, Athens was founded as a seg academy. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Content is decided by consensus. Two separate editors have reverted your change. Feel free to push this to ANEW. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached long before my edits. There has been a talk section concerning this topic for years, and it was agreed that it should be mentioned in the article that it was a segregation academy. But, for whatever reason, the mention was not there. Probably removed by someone out of bias and not noticed by anyone else. So I added it. Hastily the first time, but this time with a good source. As such, it should remain. natemup (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to make your "according to X" edit, since you know that three reverts in a row spells trouble. The source is fine and I made nothing into Wikipedia's opinion. I merely noted that it shouldn't be controversial to call a spade a spade. It's like asking me to provide a front-page newspaper article to source the claim that MLK got assassinated. Peace. natemup (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

removed yet again. John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venerated African-Americans

A tag has been placed on Category:Venerated African-Americans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Created the hyphenated version by accident. natemup (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Inaugural Colored Catholic Congress (1889).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Inaugural Colored Catholic Congress (1889).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shout (Black gospel music), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Gospel music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: African-American Catholicism has been accepted

African-American Catholicism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black Catholic Movement has been accepted

Black Catholic Movement, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Gospel music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Dorsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note about ref names

Quotes are only need for reference names when there's more than one word in the name. Thus name=website does not need to be name="website", but name=church website must be name="church website".

I prefer ref names with no quotes, as I find them easier to read.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi. Please stop adding "African-American Catholics" categories to articles unless it is reliably sourced somewhere in the article as per WP:CATV, thanks. Robvanvee 09:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Natemup. Given you've ignored my message above, I'm still going to give you the benefit of the doubt by writing this instead of templating you with another unsourced warning, though I should note, this certainly warrants one. Firstly, please always assume good faith and don't accuse fellow editors of vandalism. It's not conducive to building a better encyclopedia and neither is ignoring concerns regarding your edits brought to your talk page by fellow editors. When we discuss issues, we resolve problems. I, as a volunteer, only have the best interest of the project and its articles in mind and so should you when editing. This means doing so with a neutral point of view and without any bias on your part which, on closer inspection of these edits and given your user page, is not the case. It seems that adding person X was an African-American catholic and only that, is more important to you than the entire content of the reported info from your sources, such as this one. It says that he was raised catholic but joined the baptist church later in life. Would it not be more prudent to add all of that to the "Personal life" sections you created? Why just the bit about the catholic church? It gives the strong impression that, given your user page admission, you have an agenda to push. I'm happy to add those that are reliably sourced but please keep the quality of these articles in mind when doing so. That brings me to my next point: blogs and Find a grave are not reliable sources for WP:BLP articles unfortunately and other sources for these should be found. Thank you. Robvanvee 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On your part, you reverted a series of edits, claiming that they were not sourced. This was true in several cases, and you'll notice I did not dispute them. I accused you of vandalism in the cases where you rolled back an edit on a page wherein it *was* clearly stated that the person is Catholic. And I spared you even on a few of those. As such, we could both be accused of having agendas.

Yes, I mass reverted the mass addition as, after checking several of them, I assumed they were all unsourced. I should have checked all of them, agreed. My agenda is making sure all edits pass WP:V.

Do I focus many of my edits on Black Catholics? Yes. It is my specialty. And on Barker's page, I added that he was both Baptist and Catholic. I added only one category as I was not aware of a Black Baptist category, since that is not my area of expertise.

Here I must apologize, so you did and I glanced over your edit too quickly.

Feel free to remove the religion of these individuals as you see fit, but don't pretend it isn't commonly included on pages of otherwise non-religious articles (not to mention the fact that several of these articles have *no* sources at all). In my understanding, inadequate sourcing is best served with a ref template or talk page edit rather than reverts. natemup (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP articles require reliable sources and WP:V says that the lack thereof should rightfully be challenged. While finding a source for someone else's edits is preferable, reversion is acceptable. If I see the same unsourced cat on any page I do remove it but you were making mass unsourced additions which grabbed my attention and I'm sure there are many articles with many unsourced cats. Thanks for taking the time to reply and attempting to source your edits, though some still need more reliable references as I mentioned earlier. Robvanvee 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Racial segregation of churches in the United States. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Racial segregation of churches in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I added made one major addition, which was sourced from Dr. Ochs book. The other stuff was corrections of erroneous restatements of the existing sources. I could give examples, but you can go see for yourself. Also, the capitalization was per Wikipedia policy. I was mistaken to not leave an edit summary, though. natemup (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Natemup, you have the policy backwards! Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I now realize I read a greened quote a few weeks as if it were the Wikipedia policy. I had been operating on that reading ever since. My apologies. My other edits will be redone, however, with explanation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Preslaysa Williams

Hello, Natemup,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Joseywales1961 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Preslaysa Williams, for deletion, because [[AfD|a consensus decision]] previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Klay Thompson, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Amanda Gorman. We've been here before about MOS:CAPS, final warning. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's really not cool to make personal comments on editors to impugn our good faith contributions to the project. I suggest that you edit your recent talk page comment and redact that which is not directly oriented toward improvement of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's directly oriented toward improvement of that and various other articles. natemup (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please consider the ANEW report a warning; you need to discuss this dispute on the article talk page instead of reverting each other. Further edit warring will result in being blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Natemup is continuing his edit warring at Klay Thompson page. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a totally different page (Elizium23 was also disputing the ethnicity of Klay's brother Trayce), and you yourself are the one who has broken the 3RR rule here, despite my explanations. natemup (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not broke WP:3RR, because I did not make 4 reverts (I am currently at 3 reverts). Please double-check before making accusations. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Klay Thompson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Klay Thompson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you are ignoring everyone, I am issuing this warning notice to you. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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 African-American architects, you may be blocked from editing. You have been cautioned many times about edit warring. Please stop adding unsourced POV statement to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at African-American architects. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Zaire Use

Content you moved from one spot in the article to another turns out to have been coped from elsewhere online back in 2013. I have therefore had to remove it. — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:African-American architects

Rather than edit war with you, I have started a discussion at Talk:African-American architects regarding your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:John R. Slattery

Hello, Natemup. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John R. Slattery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xavier University of Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Superior.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Carla Harris moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Carla Harris, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarence James Duhart

The parent of Category:American Roman Catholic bishops is Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country. Bishops are notable for, and therefore categorised by, their diocese, if they have one. Not by their original nationality. Duhart appears to have moved to Thailand and stayed there until he died. There is nothing in the article about his nationality. He was an American missionary, not an American bishop. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The former category itself specifically says "This category includes bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who were American by nationality". The bishop was born and raised in Louisiana. My edits should be reinstated. natemup (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yasuke. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

STOP!

Natemup, WP:POINTy edits like this are completely unacceptable, and if I see you make such an edit again I will request that you be topic-banned from articles on Japanese history. The fact that buke status (like, indeed, all occupations in pre-modern Japan) was hereditary is not "unsourced, controversial, idiosyncratic" or "contradictory" but is rather attested on a practically universal level, and it doesn't even contradict your claim that during the Sengoku and Azuchi-Momoyama periods non-buke could be granted "samurai" status that would subsequently be passed to their descendants.

Anyway, if you want a public domain source that you can check for free online, the eighth paragraph of Lafcadio Hearn's "Feudal Integration" should suffice (I'm using the Delphi collection, which facilitates moji-kensakuing the entire Yakumo oeuvre, but you'd have to pay money for the page number to be useful). An old but still reputable and authoritative source is page 557 of Sansom's A History of Japan, 1615–1867. Here's a modern scholarly source (sorry, most of my good Japanese history books are ... well, not something I want to read a chapter of just in the hopes that it will make an explicit statement of something that, within the field of Japanese studies, is a given, just to demonstrate said given to someone on Wikipedia who seems not to want to accept it).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you make this edit? Are you trying to get TBANned? You can consider this a final warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted and ignored. natemup (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Hi natemup, I can help with the creation of an RfC. There are some steps to follow laid out at WP:RFCOPEN. If you would like me to do them, the very least I'd need from you is a "brief, neutral statement" about the issue that needs outside comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Due to the existence of one secondary definition of samurai describing them as hereditary, certain editors have reduced the intro of the "Samurai" wiki page to reflect only this description, despite the existence of more primary definitions describing them merely as retainers of a daimyo. A prominent nexus of this controversy seems to be Yasuke, an ancient African man who himself became a retainer of a Daimyo. An entire media universe has cropped around this character and the idea of an "African samurai", but despite this (and the ubiquitous historical and non-historical sources describing Yasuke as such), the aforementioned editors have also modified the Yasuke wiki page to remove mention of Yasuke being a samurai in any sense—which is the entire warp and woof of his significance justifying a Wikipedia article. One of these editors has been recently arguing in both talk pages that none of the countless sources referring to Yasuke as a samurai (including those presently abounding in the Yasuke article) meet the qualifications of being a reliable source because they are allegedly not written by scholars with sufficient credentials. He has also cited the hereditary reference in the intro of the Samurai wiki page as evidence—though he himself had a hand in that reference being added and retained. I am requesting comment on this situation so as to establish a consensus on how the Yasuke page (intro and body), and Samurai page (intro and Yasuke section) should read, according to the extant claims from reliable sources."

Feel free to edit! natemup (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that length is technically acceptable, although our guidelines strongly recommend keeping the statement quite short, maybe 1-3 sentences. It doesn't seem particularly neutral, though, and it's helpful to frame the question in a way that allows RfC participants to provide up-front vote summaries (they're not really votes but whatever). How about:

Should Yasuke be described as a samurai in the Yasuke and Samurai articles?

You could then use much of your proposed language in your not-vote.

I would recommend wrapping up the convo with @Hijiri88: on whether the posting at WP:RSN is sufficient to get outside comment without needing an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. His RSN post seems to deal primarily with the Samurai page, whereas the issue affects the Yasuke page most pertinently and probably others he and his friends have edited as well. natemup (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that RFC question is appropriate. Currently there are a lot of news sources floating around that are confusing the purely fictional character created by Netflix and LeSean Thomas with the historical figure (about whom very little is known, including his social class). If we just ask a random selection of editors whether he "should be described as a samurai" without clarifying the sourcing issue, it seems likely to cloud the issue rather than clarify it. RSN is the correct venue to ask whether the sources that have been provided thus far (which, again, have not been named: this is not valid since virtually none of the sources currently cited in the article are by professional historians of Japan) are sufficient to verify the content in question. (Talk:Mottainai is an excellent example of what happens when an RFC is used when RSN would have been the appropriate solution -- an issue that should have been resolved within a week was dragged out for over a year, and eventually an admin closed the RFC with what amounted to "roughly half of the !votes need to be thrown out as they are ignoring the sourcing problems or seem to have been made by editors who are ignorant of our sourcing policies". I can see that question resulting in exactly such a scenario.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what you think. Glad to go over your head. 😘 natemup (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi natemup, whatever you decide to do, I wish you luck. I think my best response here is to take a step back from helping you, as it's hard to view what I'm doing as neutral technical support, given how much editor conflict is involved. The link at the top of this section is pretty clear cut, so I don't imagine you'll have much difficulty setting up the RfC on your own if that's what you choose to do. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine then, how about this: I've stated numerous times that I'm not opposed to "describing Yasuke as a samurai in articles"; in order to get a consensus for or against what Natemup has advocated and I have opposed, the question would need to be

Should Yasuke be described as a "samurai" in the opening sentence of the Yasuke article without qualification of what a "samurai" is?

What about that question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are adamant about one secondary definition of samurai, no. There will be no need to qualify, since the word will be linked to the samurai page (which, ideally, will also be corrected to reflect the status quo antebellum).

Should Yasuke be described as a samurai in the Yasuke and Samurai articles? Should 'hereditary' be in the lead of the latter, unqualified?

natemup (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

you are adamant about one secondary definition of samurai You don't know me. You don't know how I feel about any of these matters beyond what I have chosen to disclose. The definition that you claim I am "adamant" about is one that (as I have disclosed to you) I am personally not a big fan of, but it is the primary definition given in most English dictionaries (not Japanese dictionaries, mind you), as well as the lead sentence of our article currently titled "Samurai". I wish it were a "secondary" definition as you are now claiming, but in English, it is not, and doesn't seem to have ever been.

the samurai page (which, ideally, will also be corrected to reflect the status quo antebellum) Are you still on this "you and a few other editors are the reason that the Samurai article refers to them as hereditary"[2] thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Abortion topic sanctions – two reverts

You were warned a year and a half ago about abortion topic sanctions.[3] Despite this, you edit warred your viewpoint into Catholics for Choice, making two reverts in one day. You might remind yourself that one revert per day is the limit for sanctioned topics. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a viewpoint. A consensus was reached before my entry, and the added wikilink is clearly the intended meaning. That fact hasn't been addressed in the slightest. natemup (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(tps) @Binksternet: my understanding is that topics covered under DS only have the one-revert-rule if an uninvolved admin place such a page restriction. I do see that there used to a broad 1RR application that was amended by arbcom last September. It would be helpful to me to know if my understanding is wrong. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's children

Hi Natemup, I reverted your edit and I gave the following explanation: Revert, Carolyn Dennis does not claim in Sounes's book that Dylan has "eight or nine" children. Nor does the BBC story make this claim. Sounes's book states Dylan has 6 children (p. 372)

You've re-posted this info: "Dennis has also claimed that Dylan has "eight or nine" children. Follow That Dream international, a Bruce Springsteen fanzine, is not a WP:RS. {fwiw I've been reading about Dylan and Springsteen for past 50 years and I've never heard of Follow That Dream international. Have you seen a copy of it?) Sounes's biography and Michael Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia are WP:RS and both state that BD has six children. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The intention was not to establish some new fact about the number of children Dylan has, but to simply reference the fact that Dennis has made that claim—Wikipedia being a repository of well-sourced claims moreso than a fact factory. Even so, you may be right that the fanzine is not a reliable source, but it's been included on Dennis' own Wikipedia page for some time now. natemup (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you recently removed content from St. Joseph's Indian School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to St. Joseph's Indian School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The content is sourced, the plaintiffs allege the abuse happened when they were students at the school, by employees of the school. Your blanking may be considered vandalism. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you are edit-warring on the article and not engaging on talk, I'm also posting this here:

This is the content that Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blanking. It is a direct quote from a source still being used in the article:

Additionally, "the Congregation of Priests of the Sacred Heart, which runs St. Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, is the defendant in numerous sex-abuse cases."<ref name=HuffPoSmith>{{cite web|last=Woodard |first=Stephanie |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/native-american-sex-abuse-lawsuits_b_873603 |title=Native American Sex-Abuse Lawsuits Head for a Higher Court |newspaper=Huffington Post |date=June 9, 2011 |access-date=April 26, 2019 }}</ref>

It's as sourced as the rest of it, so what gives? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at St. Joseph's Indian School 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (Josephites). Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Natemup reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: ). Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Natemup! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

June 2013

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rachel without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Preacher, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laypeople and Evangelist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 March 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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Natemup. 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, Natemup. 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)

August 2018

Please do not add new statements immediately in front of citations that do not support the new statements. You did this in the article on Religion in Ukraine:[4]

As of 2016 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate has 12,334 officially registered churches, by far more than any other religion in Ukraine, though the Kievan Patriarchate has more members.

By putting the new statement (shown in red above) in front of the citation, you created the false illusion that the citation supported the new statement.

There are other problems.

1. The section was about Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate.
2. The new statement did not have a citation.

I have attempted to fix the problem:

As of 2016 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscovian Patriarchate has 12,334 officially registered churches, by far more than any other religion in Ukraine, (though the Kievan Patriarchate has more members).

If you do not come up with a citation for your new statement, it will be reverted sooner or later.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Natemup. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblical inspiration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Word of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Thomas Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac Patriarch of Antioch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent contributions at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious what exactly makes the content irrelevant. A bioscience company affiliated with Planned Parenthood and secretly recorded by the Center For Medical Progress in 2015—literally the topic of the Wikipedia article—was found to have committed the crime CMP accused them of. Why are you deleting this content? natemup (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://ocweekly.com/fetal-tissue-case-8636370/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. The content was removed by other users for reasons other than copyright. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Athens Academy

I wouldn't expect someone whose been here for 7 years would have so little knowledge of how we handle disputed new content. I didn't leave you a warning earlier per WP:DTTR. If a new addition you boldly made is reverted, the proper procedure is to follow WP:BRD by starting a discussion on the article talk page. It is never ok to just put it back and insist it's the correct solution. The solution isn't far off. I'm very dubious of the reliability of the website that published this op-ed, so I'll likely continue to dispute your change just based on that (see WP:RS. The fact it's an op-ed is also a problem. If the publication were reliable, all an op-ed can verify is its own opinion. We cannot state that as Wikipedia's opinion, which is what you are doing. With a source we can agree is reliable and an op-ed, we could state it "according to X, Athens was founded as a seg academy. John from Idegon (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Content is decided by consensus. Two separate editors have reverted your change. Feel free to push this to ANEW. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached long before my edits. There has been a talk section concerning this topic for years, and it was agreed that it should be mentioned in the article that it was a segregation academy. But, for whatever reason, the mention was not there. Probably removed by someone out of bias and not noticed by anyone else. So I added it. Hastily the first time, but this time with a good source. As such, it should remain. natemup (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to make your "according to X" edit, since you know that three reverts in a row spells trouble. The source is fine and I made nothing into Wikipedia's opinion. I merely noted that it shouldn't be controversial to call a spade a spade. It's like asking me to provide a front-page newspaper article to source the claim that MLK got assassinated. Peace. natemup (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

removed yet again. John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venerated African-Americans

A tag has been placed on Category:Venerated African-Americans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Created the hyphenated version by accident. natemup (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Inaugural Colored Catholic Congress (1889).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Inaugural Colored Catholic Congress (1889).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shout (Black gospel music), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Gospel music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: African-American Catholicism has been accepted

African-American Catholicism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black Catholic Movement has been accepted

Black Catholic Movement, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Gospel music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Dorsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note about ref names

Quotes are only need for reference names when there's more than one word in the name. Thus name=website does not need to be name="website", but name=church website must be name="church website".

I prefer ref names with no quotes, as I find them easier to read.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop

Hi. Please stop adding "African-American Catholics" categories to articles unless it is reliably sourced somewhere in the article as per WP:CATV, thanks. Robvanvee 09:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Natemup. Given you've ignored my message above, I'm still going to give you the benefit of the doubt by writing this instead of templating you with another unsourced warning, though I should note, this certainly warrants one. Firstly, please always assume good faith and don't accuse fellow editors of vandalism. It's not conducive to building a better encyclopedia and neither is ignoring concerns regarding your edits brought to your talk page by fellow editors. When we discuss issues, we resolve problems. I, as a volunteer, only have the best interest of the project and its articles in mind and so should you when editing. This means doing so with a neutral point of view and without any bias on your part which, on closer inspection of these edits and given your user page, is not the case. It seems that adding person X was an African-American catholic and only that, is more important to you than the entire content of the reported info from your sources, such as this one. It says that he was raised catholic but joined the baptist church later in life. Would it not be more prudent to add all of that to the "Personal life" sections you created? Why just the bit about the catholic church? It gives the strong impression that, given your user page admission, you have an agenda to push. I'm happy to add those that are reliably sourced but please keep the quality of these articles in mind when doing so. That brings me to my next point: blogs and Find a grave are not reliable sources for WP:BLP articles unfortunately and other sources for these should be found. Thank you. Robvanvee 16:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On your part, you reverted a series of edits, claiming that they were not sourced. This was true in several cases, and you'll notice I did not dispute them. I accused you of vandalism in the cases where you rolled back an edit on a page wherein it *was* clearly stated that the person is Catholic. And I spared you even on a few of those. As such, we could both be accused of having agendas.

Yes, I mass reverted the mass addition as, after checking several of them, I assumed they were all unsourced. I should have checked all of them, agreed. My agenda is making sure all edits pass WP:V.

Do I focus many of my edits on Black Catholics? Yes. It is my specialty. And on Barker's page, I added that he was both Baptist and Catholic. I added only one category as I was not aware of a Black Baptist category, since that is not my area of expertise.

Here I must apologize, so you did and I glanced over your edit too quickly.

Feel free to remove the religion of these individuals as you see fit, but don't pretend it isn't commonly included on pages of otherwise non-religious articles (not to mention the fact that several of these articles have *no* sources at all). In my understanding, inadequate sourcing is best served with a ref template or talk page edit rather than reverts. natemup (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP articles require reliable sources and WP:V says that the lack thereof should rightfully be challenged. While finding a source for someone else's edits is preferable, reversion is acceptable. If I see the same unsourced cat on any page I do remove it but you were making mass unsourced additions which grabbed my attention and I'm sure there are many articles with many unsourced cats. Thanks for taking the time to reply and attempting to source your edits, though some still need more reliable references as I mentioned earlier. Robvanvee 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Racial segregation of churches in the United States. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Racial segregation of churches in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I added made one major addition, which was sourced from Dr. Ochs book. The other stuff was corrections of erroneous restatements of the existing sources. I could give examples, but you can go see for yourself. Also, the capitalization was per Wikipedia policy. I was mistaken to not leave an edit summary, though. natemup (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Natemup, you have the policy backwards! Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I now realize I read a greened quote a few weeks as if it were the Wikipedia policy. I had been operating on that reading ever since. My apologies. My other edits will be redone, however, with explanation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Preslaysa Williams

Hello, Natemup,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Joseywales1961 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Preslaysa Williams, for deletion, because [[AfD|a consensus decision]] previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Klay Thompson, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Amanda Gorman. We've been here before about MOS:CAPS, final warning. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's really not cool to make personal comments on editors to impugn our good faith contributions to the project. I suggest that you edit your recent talk page comment and redact that which is not directly oriented toward improvement of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's directly oriented toward improvement of that and various other articles. natemup (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please consider the ANEW report a warning; you need to discuss this dispute on the article talk page instead of reverting each other. Further edit warring will result in being blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Natemup is continuing his edit warring at Klay Thompson page. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a totally different page (Elizium23 was also disputing the ethnicity of Klay's brother Trayce), and you yourself are the one who has broken the 3RR rule here, despite my explanations. natemup (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not broke WP:3RR, because I did not make 4 reverts (I am currently at 3 reverts). Please double-check before making accusations. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Klay Thompson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Klay Thompson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you are ignoring everyone, I am issuing this warning notice to you. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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 African-American architects, you may be blocked from editing. You have been cautioned many times about edit warring. Please stop adding unsourced POV statement to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at African-American architects. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Zaire Use

Content you moved from one spot in the article to another turns out to have been coped from elsewhere online back in 2013. I have therefore had to remove it. — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:African-American architects

Rather than edit war with you, I have started a discussion at Talk:African-American architects regarding your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:John R. Slattery

Hello, Natemup. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John R. Slattery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xavier University of Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Superior.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Carla Harris moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Carla Harris, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarence James Duhart

The parent of Category:American Roman Catholic bishops is Category:Roman Catholic bishops by country. Bishops are notable for, and therefore categorised by, their diocese, if they have one. Not by their original nationality. Duhart appears to have moved to Thailand and stayed there until he died. There is nothing in the article about his nationality. He was an American missionary, not an American bishop. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The former category itself specifically says "This category includes bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who were American by nationality". The bishop was born and raised in Louisiana. My edits should be reinstated. natemup (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yasuke. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——Serial 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

STOP!

Natemup, WP:POINTy edits like this are completely unacceptable, and if I see you make such an edit again I will request that you be topic-banned from articles on Japanese history. The fact that buke status (like, indeed, all occupations in pre-modern Japan) was hereditary is not "unsourced, controversial, idiosyncratic" or "contradictory" but is rather attested on a practically universal level, and it doesn't even contradict your claim that during the Sengoku and Azuchi-Momoyama periods non-buke could be granted "samurai" status that would subsequently be passed to their descendants.

Anyway, if you want a public domain source that you can check for free online, the eighth paragraph of Lafcadio Hearn's "Feudal Integration" should suffice (I'm using the Delphi collection, which facilitates moji-kensakuing the entire Yakumo oeuvre, but you'd have to pay money for the page number to be useful). An old but still reputable and authoritative source is page 557 of Sansom's A History of Japan, 1615–1867. Here's a modern scholarly source (sorry, most of my good Japanese history books are ... well, not something I want to read a chapter of just in the hopes that it will make an explicit statement of something that, within the field of Japanese studies, is a given, just to demonstrate said given to someone on Wikipedia who seems not to want to accept it).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you make this edit? Are you trying to get TBANned? You can consider this a final warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted and ignored. natemup (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Hi natemup, I can help with the creation of an RfC. There are some steps to follow laid out at WP:RFCOPEN. If you would like me to do them, the very least I'd need from you is a "brief, neutral statement" about the issue that needs outside comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Due to the existence of one secondary definition of samurai describing them as hereditary, certain editors have reduced the intro of the "Samurai" wiki page to reflect only this description, despite the existence of more primary definitions describing them merely as retainers of a daimyo. A prominent nexus of this controversy seems to be Yasuke, an ancient African man who himself became a retainer of a Daimyo. An entire media universe has cropped around this character and the idea of an "African samurai", but despite this (and the ubiquitous historical and non-historical sources describing Yasuke as such), the aforementioned editors have also modified the Yasuke wiki page to remove mention of Yasuke being a samurai in any sense—which is the entire warp and woof of his significance justifying a Wikipedia article. One of these editors has been recently arguing in both talk pages that none of the countless sources referring to Yasuke as a samurai (including those presently abounding in the Yasuke article) meet the qualifications of being a reliable source because they are allegedly not written by scholars with sufficient credentials. He has also cited the hereditary reference in the intro of the Samurai wiki page as evidence—though he himself had a hand in that reference being added and retained. I am requesting comment on this situation so as to establish a consensus on how the Yasuke page (intro and body), and Samurai page (intro and Yasuke section) should read, according to the extant claims from reliable sources."

Feel free to edit! natemup (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that length is technically acceptable, although our guidelines strongly recommend keeping the statement quite short, maybe 1-3 sentences. It doesn't seem particularly neutral, though, and it's helpful to frame the question in a way that allows RfC participants to provide up-front vote summaries (they're not really votes but whatever). How about:

Should Yasuke be described as a samurai in the Yasuke and Samurai articles?

You could then use much of your proposed language in your not-vote.

I would recommend wrapping up the convo with @Hijiri88: on whether the posting at WP:RSN is sufficient to get outside comment without needing an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. His RSN post seems to deal primarily with the Samurai page, whereas the issue affects the Yasuke page most pertinently and probably others he and his friends have edited as well. natemup (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that RFC question is appropriate. Currently there are a lot of news sources floating around that are confusing the purely fictional character created by Netflix and LeSean Thomas with the historical figure (about whom very little is known, including his social class). If we just ask a random selection of editors whether he "should be described as a samurai" without clarifying the sourcing issue, it seems likely to cloud the issue rather than clarify it. RSN is the correct venue to ask whether the sources that have been provided thus far (which, again, have not been named: this is not valid since virtually none of the sources currently cited in the article are by professional historians of Japan) are sufficient to verify the content in question. (Talk:Mottainai is an excellent example of what happens when an RFC is used when RSN would have been the appropriate solution -- an issue that should have been resolved within a week was dragged out for over a year, and eventually an admin closed the RFC with what amounted to "roughly half of the !votes need to be thrown out as they are ignoring the sourcing problems or seem to have been made by editors who are ignorant of our sourcing policies". I can see that question resulting in exactly such a scenario.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what you think. Glad to go over your head. 😘 natemup (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi natemup, whatever you decide to do, I wish you luck. I think my best response here is to take a step back from helping you, as it's hard to view what I'm doing as neutral technical support, given how much editor conflict is involved. The link at the top of this section is pretty clear cut, so I don't imagine you'll have much difficulty setting up the RfC on your own if that's what you choose to do. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine then, how about this: I've stated numerous times that I'm not opposed to "describing Yasuke as a samurai in articles"; in order to get a consensus for or against what Natemup has advocated and I have opposed, the question would need to be

Should Yasuke be described as a "samurai" in the opening sentence of the Yasuke article without qualification of what a "samurai" is?

What about that question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are adamant about one secondary definition of samurai, no. There will be no need to qualify, since the word will be linked to the samurai page (which, ideally, will also be corrected to reflect the status quo antebellum).

Should Yasuke be described as a samurai in the Yasuke and Samurai articles? Should 'hereditary' be in the lead of the latter, unqualified?

natemup (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

you are adamant about one secondary definition of samurai You don't know me. You don't know how I feel about any of these matters beyond what I have chosen to disclose. The definition that you claim I am "adamant" about is one that (as I have disclosed to you) I am personally not a big fan of, but it is the primary definition given in most English dictionaries (not Japanese dictionaries, mind you), as well as the lead sentence of our article currently titled "Samurai". I wish it were a "secondary" definition as you are now claiming, but in English, it is not, and doesn't seem to have ever been.

the samurai page (which, ideally, will also be corrected to reflect the status quo antebellum) Are you still on this "you and a few other editors are the reason that the Samurai article refers to them as hereditary"[5] thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Abortion topic sanctions – two reverts

You were warned a year and a half ago about abortion topic sanctions.[6] Despite this, you edit warred your viewpoint into Catholics for Choice, making two reverts in one day. You might remind yourself that one revert per day is the limit for sanctioned topics. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a viewpoint. A consensus was reached before my entry, and the added wikilink is clearly the intended meaning. That fact hasn't been addressed in the slightest. natemup (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(tps) @Binksternet: my understanding is that topics covered under DS only have the one-revert-rule if an uninvolved admin place such a page restriction. I do see that there used to a broad 1RR application that was amended by arbcom last September. It would be helpful to me to know if my understanding is wrong. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's children

Hi Natemup, I reverted your edit and I gave the following explanation: Revert, Carolyn Dennis does not claim in Sounes's book that Dylan has "eight or nine" children. Nor does the BBC story make this claim. Sounes's book states Dylan has 6 children (p. 372)

You've re-posted this info: "Dennis has also claimed that Dylan has "eight or nine" children. Follow That Dream international, a Bruce Springsteen fanzine, is not a WP:RS. {fwiw I've been reading about Dylan and Springsteen for past 50 years and I've never heard of Follow That Dream international. Have you seen a copy of it?) Sounes's biography and Michael Gray's Bob Dylan Encyclopedia are WP:RS and both state that BD has six children. Mick gold (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The intention was not to establish some new fact about the number of children Dylan has, but to simply reference the fact that Dennis has made that claim—Wikipedia being a repository of well-sourced claims moreso than a fact factory. Even so, you may be right that the fanzine is not a reliable source, but it's been included on Dennis' own Wikipedia page for some time now. natemup (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

June 2021

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you recently removed content from St. Joseph's Indian School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to St. Joseph's Indian School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The content is sourced, the plaintiffs allege the abuse happened when they were students at the school, by employees of the school. Your blanking may be considered vandalism. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you are edit-warring on the article and not engaging on talk, I'm also posting this here:

This is the content that Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blanking. It is a direct quote from a source still being used in the article:

Additionally, "the Congregation of Priests of the Sacred Heart, which runs St. Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, is the defendant in numerous sex-abuse cases."<ref name=HuffPoSmith>{{cite web|last=Woodard |first=Stephanie |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/native-american-sex-abuse-lawsuits_b_873603 |title=Native American Sex-Abuse Lawsuits Head for a Higher Court |newspaper=Huffington Post |date=June 9, 2011 |access-date=April 26, 2019 }}</ref>

It's as sourced as the rest of it, so what gives? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 03:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at St. Joseph's Indian School 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (Josephites). Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Natemup reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: ). Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

PNA

The material you added into the article and which I reverted as unnecessary (it is) also has no source. Provide one or self revert, thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There are various sources in the article that speak to what I added. If you are interested in improving the article (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM), you can help with citing rather than removing information. natemup (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Citation needed" markers

I want to remind you not to delete "citation needed" markers from statements without either deleting the statements entirely or providing clear, proper citations for them. Recently, you deleted such markers in the Thomy Lafon and Institute Catholique articles without providing any explanation, citation, or reference. Please remember that sourcing and citation are both critical to creating a trustworthy and productive Wikipedia article, and deleting such markers makes it more difficult for everyone to recognize places in need of enhancement. I appreciate your help with this as well as your general edits to these pages, but I ask that you pay closer attention to what you are deleting and/or where you are placing citations. Thank you. Anwegmann (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Institute Catholique

When you revert an edit, especially when reverting against the long-standing form of the article, please make sure that you do not haphazardly and continually undo changes, especially if they are your own work. That is precisely what the Sandbox is for—to make sure that edits are formatted correctly. As for your issue with the Institute Catholique article, if you are "working to improve the page," as you claimed in your sixth revert, that too is precisely what the Sandbox is for. Please do not make public any information that is entirely uncited. The other option for this page is to blank everything that is unsourced—which is 90% of the article—and gradually include on information for which there are sources.

Additionally, the source you are using throughout the article—https://aaregistry.org/story/institute-catholique-formed/—is literally lifted from an earlier, equally unsourced version of this very page! That very obviously is not a reliable source, as it is just literally the same unsourced information. I am also pinging @Elizium23: here, as he has experience with situations like this, as evidenced from previous entries on this page. Anwegmann (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies about the mistaken reversions. (However, it would have made more sense to blank the entire article than to make sure a random portion of it is blanked.)

Also, I was under the impression the Wiki was just lifted from the AAR article. What makes you think it's the other way around? natemup (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose my point is that regardless of who did the lifting—which is entirely unclear beyond the fact that it happened—the source is not reliable, as it has the exact same information, also unsourced, contained in the Wikipedia article. I don't know when the AAR article was published, but the Institute Catholique article was published, using nearly all of this same unsourced information, in 2006, which is quite a while ago. In any case, the information is unsourced, unreliable, and plagiarized—again, by whom is unclear. I am totally fine with blanking the entire body of the article, as I recently suggested on the article's talk page. Anwegmann (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Now I know that the AAR article simply lifted the information from the Wikipedia article, as the AAR article was published on December 1, 2020, some 14 years after the Wikipedia article was published. Look at the page source for the AAR article and ctrl-f search for the publishing date. Anwegmann (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what you're seeing. I do see that the source noted on the AAR page is a BlackPast article from 2018. natemup (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, again, this Wikipedia article has contained this information since 2006. Secondly, to find the publishing date, right click on an open spot on the AAR article page. Find the "view page source" option and click it. From there, you can either scroll through the code or simply do a ctrl-f search for "date" or "datepublished," and you will see in two places that the article was published on December 1, 2020. Anwegmann (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

And in any case, if you see a BackPast.org article as a reference, why use the highly questionable AAR article instead of the valid BackPast.org article? I added the "citation needed" marker in both January and today, due to your deletion of it. You deleted it and, after several reverts, replaced it with an unreliable source. So I added it back, because the source you provided was unreliable for all the reasons discussed here. If you would like to verify that the BlackPart.org article contains the appropriate information and link it to that information in the Wikipedia article, please do so! That's the entire point I've been trying to make—sources need to be reliable if information from them is to be used in this article. That's not controversial or, frankly, deserving of this kind of pushback. Anwegmann (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that AAR was unreliable. Hence my citing it. I've cited BlackPast before, but I only noticed it at the bottom of the page after our discussion began.

My pushback was only toward hiding a random portion of the article based on (presumably someone else's) judgment in the past. I say bring it all forward and deal with it from there. And I've made clear that the repeated reversions were a mistake. natemup (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, since we're both aware of the source linked clearly at the bottom of the AAR article (no code inspection required), you could have verified it as well as me. Perhaps better. I'm not sure how the onus is on you to add a "citation needed" tag but not to add a citation you were most likely privy to. I hate to assume you were, though. natemup (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no "onus" on anyone to add a "citation needed" marker. The statement upon which it was placed needed a citation. So, given the purpose of those markers, a "citation needed" note was attached to the statement in hopes that someone with the time, interest, or gumption to seek one out would see it and do so. Because you deleted that marker, it is up to you to make sure that the source you with which you replace it is valid. My deletion of your source was not an attempt to find a better source. It was an act of re-establishing what you had changed based on the fact that the source you used was unreliable, the reasons for which I have repeatedly explained. The burden, then, is on you either find a reliable source and make proper changes or simply leave the page as it was before you changed anything. I genuinely don't understand why this has become a multi-tiered argument. If you change something in an article or delete a template, note, comment, etc., you need to do so with proper explanation and sources. After all of this, that is and was my point. Anwegmann (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

And I don't understand why active Wikipedians are so loathe to find sources themselves in the Year of Our Lord 2021. That burden is on us all, especially since I added virtually no content (which would obviously put the burden on me). My deletion of the tag was misguided, but this became a multi-tiered argument when you made multi-tiered accusations in the edit summaries. natemup (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Gwen Berry

Continued destructive edits to Gwen Berry or other articles with cited content, based purely on your personal opinion or social crusade will result in your blocked from editing, indefinitely without further warning. You have had a lengthy and demonstrated history of edit warring and conducting destructive edits which are not in line with your opinion, in violation of WP:POV. You have also been recently WP:ANI'ed at this entry for being excessively disruptive and violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:POV. Cease this sort of activity now, or it will be ceased for you. No further warnings. 2603:6000:9846:200:3972:AA23:1D38:3800 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Haven't edited that page since the 2nd, though it looks like cooler heads have prevailed anyway. natemup (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

When you edited it in the fashion that you did is not the issue. Please re-read above until you understand. 2603:6000:9846:200:3972:AA23:1D38:3800 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You got it, 2603:6000:9846:200:3972:AA23:1D38:3800. natemup (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Eccekevin

Vandalism by User:Eccekevin, who deletes cats for gay popes and gay cardinals on July 6, 2021. User:Exxekevin denies LGBT popes and cardinals in Roman-Catholic Church and thinks the magazine The Advocate is not a good source. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• [https://www.advocate.com/religion/2017/10/18/21-gay-popes-cardinals-and-assorted-catholic-leaders#slide-0 Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogles

--188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)