User talk:Imonmywaynow

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Imonmywaynow! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You're blocked for 31 hours due to your string of edits on God. Please don't do things like that. Georgewilliamherbert 23:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

(former unblock request text):

Excuse me. How is that vandalism[1]? How is self-reversion grounds for being blocked[2]? And why 31 hours instead of 24?

I resent how I have to be the one who needs to justify his/her changes, but, anyway, when you ask about my string of edits, are talking about my self-reversions or the edits in general? With regard to the self-reversions, I just didn't like what I'd written. My motivation for making edits in the first place was to try to make the article more accurate-- the explanation of the term "Shangdi" was (and remains) incomplete. Others, apparently, didn't like my changes, but the question seems to be what is/were/are his/her/their problem(s) with my changes? I've just given my reason. Undoing an alphabetical arrangement of the names of God which makes more sense and is more convenient (in my opinion)? Okay, maybe he didn't see my edit on Shangdi and only saw a change with the order of the terms. Fine. But removing the explanation for a term, which was, up until my revision, incomplete (and, therefore, misleading) entirely, was unjustified. But the point is that I was trying to make the article more accurate. That was my motivation. You're welcome.

You did make a number of other changes and made them repeatedly despite being reverted by other editors; tedentious editing or edit warring is not ok.

That you reverted one of your own edits doesn't mean that the others weren't problematic.

If you can clarify what you were up to with that series of edits, it might help. Another admin should eventually be along to review the block, and if you can explain they are more likely to unblock you. I am also willing to listen to what you have to say... Georgewilliamherbert 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I am satistifed that this was a misunderstanding here, not intentional vandalism.

Can you please do me a favor and discuss the edits you were making on the Talk:God article talk page, and see if you can make sure that everyone is aware of what you are doing and why, and that any disagreements are dealt with there instead of by edit-warring back and forth on the article itself?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 05:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your email

I don't have that data anymore. The sources used are listed on the file description page, but I don't remember how I had access to them back in 2010. Sorry. Anomie⚔ 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Critical race theory, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Critical race theory. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Rsjaffe. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Yellow Peril, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yellow Peril, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The referenced you used has nothing about the yellow peril or anything similar, so does not support the connection. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)