User talk:Tnvol88

Welcome!

Hi Tnvol88! I noticed your contributions to Millersville, Tennessee and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Millersville, Tennessee has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello, I'm Augend. I noticed that you recently removed content from Baden culture 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. Augend (drop a line) 01:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of messiah claimants. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Don't edit based on your personal beliefs. Wikipedia content is determined by reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce incorrect info. I added the term heresy which is factually correct and corrected incorrect info. Tnvol88 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans didn't care about heresy. They had no religious motives. The Jewish Sanhedrin was concerned about heresy. The Jews didn't crucify him. They turned him over to the Romans for execution. AGAIN, go by what the sources say, not your personal beliefs. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he was crucified under Jewish law not Roman law. Have you EVER read the Bible? Pontius Pilate said Jesus was innocent meaning he wasn't guilty under Roman law. He was guilty under Jewish law by claiming he was the Messiah and the Sanhedrin, not the Romans, persecuted him although they asked Roman authority to carry it out Tnvol88 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, we don't change content based on your personal opinions. The Romans crucified him, not the Jews, and "sedition" is sourced in the article. I'm not arguing this with you endlessly. Read WP:V and WP:RS before making any more edits. My last comment. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heresy is sourced too and under the Wikipedia article for that it shows that's why he was crucified. Yes, the Romans crucified Jesus at the behest of the Sanhedrin which is the Jewish authority. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. That's how it's written. Tnvol88 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Baden culture, 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. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave valid reasons. I'm refixing again thanks to you. There were false claims without sources in that article that I corrected Tnvol88 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of messiah claimants. Sundayclose (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added legitimate source material from academia.com, which is a credible source and peer reviewed. Tnvol88 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i corrected info in that article that was already inaccurate and poorly written Tnvol88 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of messiah claimants 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; read about 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. Sundayclose (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then do your job as an editor and stop feeding your ego. Look up Pilate's court in wikipedia!!!! The Romans found Jesus innocent of charges of sedition but then gave into the demands of the crowd and Sanhedrin. That's what your own wikipedia article on the subject says!!!! Pilate's court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate's_court

If you're not going to go by your own source material then you're not much of an editor, are you? Tnvol88 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Sundayclose (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

STOP this nonsense or you will lose your editing privileges. You did not add a source. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sundayclose (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dicuss all you want, idiot. But in the Wikipedia article on heresy it references "Judaism's views on Jesus" and shows that's why the Sanhedrin asked the Romans to crucify him. At the time, heresy was punishable by death under Jewish law. I also added very credible external links to the Baden culture article using academia.com as a source, which is peer reviewed among actual archaeologists, not wikipedia layman. And I edited a dubious claim which also had no source link, as well, in that article.

You're ego needs to take a break! Tnvol88 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate's_court

According to the Wikipedia article on Pontius Pilate's trial of Jesus he was found innocent of sedition charges by Pilate. READ YOUR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on the subject.

Just because he was charged with sedition doesn't mean that's why he was ultimately crucified.

Again, going by wikipedia's own link, Pilate found him not guilty of sedition but then relented to the crowd and the demands of the Sanhedrin.

If that's not accurate then you need to remove or rewrite the entire wikipedia article regarding Pilate's trial of Jesus and stop being hypocritical. Tnvol88 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring combined with incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilate's_court

Go by your own source article, hypocrite. And fuck your egos Tnvol88 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked, and the block duration has been doubled, as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]