Talk page access was revoked, nothing more to see here
A belated welcome!
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, Ernio48. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lady Gaga, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Some of your vandalism can appear in the Google searches and we don't want that.Thebirdlover (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --Non-Dropframetalk22:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May 2012
One of your additions to Donna Summer has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. (If you are the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material without verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This message relates to this edit, where content from Billboard was copied without attribution or paraphrasing. For help on how to use existing content and referencing, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. matt (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ernio48, this addition is absolutely full of errors in grammar, and goes into way too much detail. I don't know where to even begin with culling this entry, and I have other things to do IRL today: but it needs serious work, and it will be have to be edited extensively. I think that you are operating in good faith, but you are simply adding far too many mistakes and far too much unnecessary detail to this article concerning Donna Summer's death. Please do not be offended if I or any other editor changes what you have added in a significant manner, and we can all go to the talk page when that happens. Cheers :> Doctalk12:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 2012
On 26–27 June 2012, you added considerable material on Dusty Springfield. Much of it is improperly formatted, contains poorly defined refs and information which is either redundant or overly detailed with trivial facts. The article was a recent GA candidate. I have reverted all of the added material pending better expression, formatting and relevance. Please work on any additional content and modify it to meet the standard already shown by the article. If you have any concerns about this matter raise them at the article's talkpage for discussion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just a quick note about date formats. Pls check the policy at WP:MOSDATE regarding date ranges. A couple of the changes you have recently made a contrary to the required format. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of former German colonies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stadtschloss, Berlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry IV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Goebbels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J31305, Auszeichnung des Hitlerjungen Willi Hübner.jpg|thumb|left|9
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Great power you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord(talk)11:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Germans may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] or any other persons with a German forebear, who came to modern Germany after 1955.</ref><ref>[https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2013/Zensus2011/bevoelkerung_
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I'd like to know according to which criteria the article "Great power" has been named good article.It seems really original like also the article "Potential superpowers" that has inside even Brazil and Russia.I'm really curious.Glc72 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
', [[King of Italy]]. After this he would ride on to Rome and be crowned emperor by the pope. See [[Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor for more details.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congregationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English Church. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestantism by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalians. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the largest Protestant churches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prussian Union. 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.
I have answered your ctitics regarding muliethnicity. If you believe that the article needs additional information, please edit it. I'm not able to do it because of my poor English.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarians. 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.
Protetant reformations:
Ernio, Slovakia and Slovaks in the 16th - 17th centuries were the par of the Kingdom of Hungary (You cannot identify today ethnical Hungarioan state with a multi-national kingdom of the past.) So information on the reformation among Slovaks should be historically correctly included in the scetion on the reformation in Hungary.
Creating a special section for Slovakia woudl be ahistorical.
If there is a mention about reformation in Slovene lands and Primož Trubar and about a reformation in Greece, there is no reason to exclude Jiri Tranovský (Tranoscius). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HK9900 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Protetant reformations: Ernio, Slovakia and Slovaks in the 16th - 17th centuries were the par of the Kingdom of Hungary (You cannot identify today ethnical Hungarioan state with a multi-national kingdom of the past.) So information on the reformation among Slovaks should be historically correctly included in the scetion on the reformation in Hungary. Creating a special section for Slovakia woudl be ahistorical. If there is a mention about reformation in Slovene lands and Primož Trubar and about a rehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ernio48&action=edit§ion=new#formation in Greece, there is no reason to exclude Jiri Tranovský (Tranoscius).
HK9900 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 22 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poland-Lithuania. 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.
Hello how are you?. If i moved my edit to the introduction of the paragraph of Protestant culture, still there is a problem for you?. I think this edit that you revort belong to Protestantism article. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Protestantism and Protestantism by country are articles stricly about Protestantism. Additional informations concerning Catholics and atheists are irrevelant. Though, you can put it into the Protestant culture article as it needs expansion and a more detailed information won't hurt anyone.Ernio48 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was only about protestant Nobel Prize Laureates you can look agian: "According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes).[138] While 32% have identified with Protestantism in it's various forms (208 prize).[138] although Protestant comprise 11.6%-13% of the world's population", the mention of Catholics and atheists was inside the reference not the article itself.--Jobas (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Nevertheless, I don't think it belongs to Protestantism by country as that article is about the demographic development of Protestantism. Nobel Award winners are certainly irrelevant there. I suppose you can place the Nobel Prizes thing only in the Protestant culture-related sections.Ernio48 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No problem but can you put it agian in the article of Protestantism in Protestant culture section. Becouse i don't want to edit since you revert it and my edit will sound as war editing. Thank you and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berlin Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prussian Union. 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.
Hi, I saw that you deleted in the article related to the German empire the section about Bismarck. I do agree that there is no source, but there is a link directing to the chancellor that explains very well what was described in the former article. Would it be possible to keep this assertion that is all but the truth, and considering that the link directing to the article that develop this fact precisely could be admitted? The switch in the German policy after the withdraw of Bismark is essential to apprehend the early stages of isolation of the empire that will lead to the collapse?--Gabriel HM (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware both sentences are very possibly true (with a possible exception of useless colonies - although I heard many historians mentioning this, it is still debatable as no one ever showed me the numbers or other data + can't imagine Tanzania being not a prosperous colony given that it has over 50 mln people today). I wasn't the one demanding citation. The citations stayed in the article for over a year and no one provided a citation. I would keep it, but there needs to be a reference instead the one who placed [citation needed] will come back and delete it over and over until citation is provided.Ernio48 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prussian Union. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious affiliations of Chancellors of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Democratic Union. 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.
Please stop deleting the examples of Anabaptists from the Christianity article. It's absolutely normal and OK to include a couple of examples of something without including the whole list. PepperBeast(talk)21:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judentum in Deutschland
Curious as to why you are so against this edit. Jews have undeniably had a formidable influence on Germany…the word is mentioned in the article 14 times (and "Protestant" only 12, by the way).
It has nothing to do with numbers, and everything to do with influence. This is not just "any minority". Jews are woven into the very fabric of German history. The article French people lists "Judaism" as a religion of the French people. I do not see why German people cannot be the same.
Edit: I would accept a 'minority' section. But we absolutely cannot have a Jew (Einstein) as one of the pictures and then not include him in what makes a "German" --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה05:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pure numbers, demographical reasons. If we are going to include Jewish let's include everyone else, cause-frankly-they are of the same significance today.Ernio48 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. French people has this minority designation, as do many other nationality ethnic groups. If you're really so against including Jews here, then let us please remove the image of Einstein (who was Jewish), because it's silly to have him there otherwise. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה17:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Southern Baptists" is not a religion. The religions practiced by the Clinton family include Southern Baptism and Methodism, which makes them Southern Baptists and Methodists. However, the tradition itself is known as Southern Baptism/Methodism, just as followers of Islam are known as Muslims, therefore the religion's name is Islam, not Muslims. MB298 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but keep in mind there is no common approval of the use of "Baptism", this term is largely reserved for the act of baptism, while the churches are called Baptist churches. Also, I don't think "Southern Baptism" is correct too, cause it's not a movement just one denomination - the Southern Baptist Convention, a part of the Baptist churches.
Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jonathan Edwards (theologian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious revival. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Miller. 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.
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page David Bowie has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel)23:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, do you even think when you write something on wikipedia, idiots? violates Wikipedia policies that we treat each other with due respect within a collaborative effort. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage01:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swedish Pentecostal Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Berg. 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.
Please do not make unexplained changes to articles then repeat them with a youtube "source" only quoted in an edit summary and get stroppy with me. Unexplained unsourced changes can be reverted on sight. Britmax (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 20 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germanic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian language. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John D. Rockefeller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Bahamas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of God. 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.
Firstly thank you for caring enough to make the edit.
The issues of the wars in the Cévennes are wide ranging and full of POVs- for a war that lasted two years- the bitterness that has survived is amazing.
The crux of the issue is that this is the lead sentence, and as such, that can be all a mobile phone user ever views. It is not obvious that Huguenots were the protestants we are talking about- or which type of Huguenots (and the Huguenot ) does not help - that still needs to be researched. We have conflict between versions on fr:wikipedia, en: and de. Not to mention occitan. For accessibility it is safer to keep the simple explanation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. 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.
Hello, Ernio48. You have new messages at Tobyc75's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Huguenot. Compounding this is the removal of well-sourced material, to be replaced by the contradictory unsourced mess you added. You've had more than a few warnings about this already.Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Geneva has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. ZH8000 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted my edit on History of Calvinism. (To me your edit seemed unconstructive, as a whole, though there were very good copyedit bits in it.) In my opinion any article and its lead section should start with a description of the article topic. In this case, there could first be something general on Calvinism, not just the history of it. In average, people don't know what Calvinism is. I am not joking: for example in my country most people identify themselves as protestants and still they don't have a clue on what Calvinism is. Much the less in non-christian countries, I presume. The topic is of zero importance to me, and I have no knowledge on it, thus I will not write a lead section for the article. Maybe you could put up a sentence (or two) to create a good start for the article? Currently it starts abruptly and seems to miss a bit. The first sentence does not seem to be good English (I am not a native speaker of English but still). At least, please add a wikilink to the article on Calvinism and have the topic in bold somewhere in the early lead. Thank you.--Micraboy (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Radical Reformation into Protestant Reformation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you refuse to accept consensus on articles such as Elvis Presley and continue to push your views on religion there and other places. You have been periodically pushing this edit for as long as I can remember. If you do it again, I will seek to have you topic banned from the page, or banned from editing religions into articles altogether. --Laser brain(talk)04:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ernio48. 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're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mennonite, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When you step over the line and go against consensus and claim Simmons was the founder, you're just spouting nonsense. He was one of the early leaders and influenced the ideas, but he did not found it. Seek consensus before any further changes.Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Religion section Poland article
Pls stop edit warring, and remember the 3R rule. The point of saying Evangelical Christianity is to include denominations that do not consider themselves as Protestants, but base their faith on the Holy Bible. You want to exclude them and make Evangelism equal to Protestantism. --E-960 (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's difference between decline and sufference as words.They derive both from latin.Decline can be good for scandinavian area or north Germany or north Netherlands,not for other countries.Suffer means that then you can recover (and in countries you wrote lutheranism is widely minority),decline is like more similar to not reverse.82.49.34.193 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't global consensus on the status quo of the article about the edit "Decline of the Catholic church".Reference is only about north Europe.Picuslor (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in some way related to the editor User:Emiya1980? I ask because both accounts have made similar editsL for instance adding flags to the info0boxes of German political and military subject articles. What, if any, is the relationship? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ernio- A couple editing suggestions for you to consider:
Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered. Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Erictalk09:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Corny Ostermann) has been reviewed!
Where is that rule? Frankly, I'd happily remove them from all Carolingian-era articles. There is no consensus for them. Pushy editors like yourself just add them willy-nilly, declaring matter-of-factly that, e.g., East Francia came to an end in 962, which is nonsense. Srnec (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to Jan Hus does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Please use edit summaries for every edit to article space it makes it easier to understand the reasons and content.—DIYeditor (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you continue not to use edit summaries and it seems perhaps intentional. Is there anything I can do to convince you otherwise? It really is helpful for other editors to know what your intent is with each edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you could get in the habit of using edit summaries, it would be helpful to the rest of us. It is obvious from your talkpage that your activity here generates a lot of clean-up work for the community. The least you could do is explain your edits. Erictalk23:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson Davis, please provide sources.
Thanks for your contribution, but could you please footnote your additions with a source, such as [2]. This will keep your addition from being removed. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snake handling
Hi, I've noticed that you are making contributions to our article on snake handling which is in need of attention due to lack of suitable citations. For example, I removed a piece of information which had remained uncited for a year. If you have access to the books used to source the article (on google books) could you help me to look them up and compare the source text to the article text? I don't have access from my location in Shanghai, China.
It would help if you could either 1) Add the necessary citations at the end of the sentences where they are missing, if some of the source text supports the article content or 2) Remove the article text if it is not supported or has been indirectly inferred from two or more sources.
Glad there's someone else working here on the article, hope we can collaborate more in the future - many thanks! Edaham (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. HINDWIKI • CHAT01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ClubjustinTalkosphere01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a while ago now, but I wondered if you could give more explanation of your vote on the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue move debate "Support only if you cover the dialogue between every Protestant denomination and the Catholic Church."
Do you think the article should cover every Protestant denomination? If so, why? There are other articles for other denominations than those that call themselves Lutheran (e.g. Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue).
And what does it have to do with the move debate? Given that change isn't likely to be made, should your vote have been read as an oppose, neutral, or something else?
It's a while ago now, but I wondered if you could give more explanation of your vote on the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue move debate "Support only if you cover the dialogue between every Protestant denomination and the Catholic Church."
Do you think the article should cover every Protestant denomination? If so, why? There are other articles for other denominations than those that call themselves Lutheran (e.g. Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue).
And what does it have to do with the move debate? Given that change isn't likely to be made, should your vote have been read as an oppose, neutral, or something else?
Hello, Ernio48. 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 created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Abishe (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Johann Förster
Hello Ernio48,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Johann Förster for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Johann Forster.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at New Mexico, you may be blocked from editing. You have been cautioned repeatedly to leave edit summaries, yet you blanked a significant portion of this article without any explanation.Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changes and minor changes in "Baptists"
Hi Ernio48,
I understand that you are monitoring the article on Baptists. That's good. I've been trying for some improvement in the introduction; some bold edits, some minor polishing. I have nothing against discussing the content of the more bold changes, like the wording of the definition. We have done that before. But some of the polishing I've done, I really don't think should be controversial. If it is, I'd like to know why. So when you change back even all the minor changes without explanation, I think it is slighty unproductive.
Try to avoid the "buttery butter" sentences, especially in the lead. I mean like "Baptists are people who go to a Baptist church".Ernio48 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I think the issue is that the article really is about the Baptist "traditon", or "movement", i.e. a branch of christianity, but that the title suggests individuals. So the transition has to be there, whether explicit or implicit (no butter). If the article is to be under its current name. But that is probably a question for the talk page.St.nerol (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
Hello Ernio48,
You have just changed the info on the page three times in less than an hour. I suggest you read WP:3RR and avoid edit warring by taking your proposed change to the talk page (as per WP:BRD). Perhaps pipe the Germany link to the Weimar Republic. Or not - country names should not be linked anyways (MOS:OVERLINK). Loopy30 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Baptist numbers
Hello, I've looked for sources for solid useful estimates of the number of Baptists because it seems like that would be very useful for the article, but have not found them, if you know of any can you add them, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi Ernio, I just saw your edit at Criticism of Protestantism and I tend to disagree with it. First, I have not ever seen a sidebar acting as the main image in any other article, and it seems it is not standard practice. Secondly, I think the image of the branching out of protestant groups is really a key criticism which even protestants bring out, so it has to be more highlighted. Thanks. Marax (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Why was adding Martin Luther to the Calvinism page incorrect? May of his teachings were what led to the understanding of the doctrines of grace. Micahbeatty (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[...]that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice[...] - Calvinism is based of theological traditions of Calvin, Knox, Beza, Vermigli and many others. His teachings led to many things, but this is not what Calvinism is based on.Ernio48 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
then Luther arose, and after him others, who with united counsels sought out means and methods by which religion might be purged from all these defilements, the doctrine of godliness restored to its integrity, and the church raised out of its calamitous into somewhat of a tolerable condition.
The same course we are still pursuing in the present day.
—John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church.”
So, according to John Calvin, he was following in the footsteps of Luther. Luther’s teachings on predestination and divine election undoubtedly influenced Calvin and later reformers in the refinement of Calvinistic Theology. For this reason, I think that failing to mention Luther on this page would be a mistake. Please do not allow your personal feelings on Luther and Calvin get in the way of making the page on Calvinism more historically accurate. As it says in the opening paragraphs of the page, Calvinism can also be referred to as reformed. To deny that Luther began this reformation is ludicrous. Micahbeatty (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the Anabaptism article. However, I noticed that you didn't add any citations for your additional information. All content on Wikipedia must be cited or it may be removed, resulting in your efforts being lost. Please add references demonstrating where you found this information. Thank you. Daask (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pomerania and Silesia, as historical regions, were mostly German at that point with millions inhabiting those two (just before World War II) and then the expulsions changed everything. It must refer to voivodeships of the Second Republic of Poland, which had an estimated 800,000 Germans as the article says and it is a probable number.Ernio48 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting uncited nonsense about Koresh and the Branch Davidians. If you want a page on the twelve people start a seperate one. Sveryome knows Koresh's group that mostly died at Waco as the Branch Davidians. If you keep this up I'll bring in other editors to deal with the issue. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to bring others. There are tons of references which support that Koresh founded his own group and blaming all Branch Davidians is incorrect and against Wikipedia's neutrality policies.Ernio48 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know this
This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. All additions and corrections should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly.--Moxy (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Memel was part of East Prussian evacuation. According to Die Deutschen Vertreibungs-verluste page 241 3/4 of Memel's population was in fact evacuated by 4th Army in Oct 1944. Please stop guessing and post only material that can be verified.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please that map is small potatoes!! In the Schieder report Memel was included with the East Prussian evacuation in the fall of 1944. There was no separate Memel evacuation.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
What I added to that article was not written in an offensive tone. It's a fact conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones are considering Clinton to be a reptilian.Ernio48 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Well, not really. It may be a fact they make such statements to troll people or as an offensive in-joke, but not that they really believe this. The problem here, though, is that you didn't clarify that and you didn't cite it. Disclaimer: I initially extended your block, but decided that was inappropriate in the circumstances, given the specific article you were editing. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Ehy, I've seen that you liked my latest edit in the Religion in the United States article, but unfortunately the user Wddan, the one who always starts edit wars in religion-themed articles, hastily reverted my edits twice, with the latest [3] here. Can you restore the correct and neutral revision of the article, I'd like to avoid an edit war but I need consensous. Thank you! - FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.
DIE in your RAGE darling 😉
From 2011 on Wikipedia and no user rights! Great job here! It looks like it is a "consensus" from the community of Wikipedia that you are a no place to trust.
I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a deletion discussion about the redirect Holy Empire. If you're interested in participating in this discussion, please leave your comments here.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Heinrich Bitter for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
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.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
I noticed your recent edit to Anabaptism does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please avoid responding to unhelpful comments, as you did at Talk:Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. Talk page comments are meant to discuss improvement of the article, not the subject itself. When some antisemitic crank makes comments about the subject, you would do well to either revert those comments or ignore them. I reverted an IP solely to prevent refactoring but I don't think your useless reply merits keeping the entire thread. Chris Troutman (talk)15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Protestants survived only thank to French ambiguous behaviour deriving from Gallicanism. France internal fihthing for the crown was the safety for protestants.In this way power moved from Sapin to France that to remain catholic asked more power.You edited in that way in a balanced way.95.233.11.227 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding new information
If you intend to add information to an article's infobox or lead, please also include it in the main body of the article and add the necessary citations. Saying "I saw it on German WP" is not enough, as you may be unwittingly adding false information.--Catlemur (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very doubtful. The German wikipedia has high quality articles about their own topics. Also, I live in the lands previously owned by the Schaffgotsch family, so I know my stuff.
Einer der Brüder, Christoph († 1601), auf Kynast und Greifenstein, trat zum Protestantismus über. Sein Sohn Ulrich (1595–1635) erwarb von Adam auch die Herrschaft Trachenberg. Er stellte sich zu Beginn des Dreißigjährigen Krieges auf die Seite des böhmischen Winterkönigs, der 1620 in der Schlacht am Weißen Berg unterlag, worauf Böhmen und Schlesien vom Habsburger Kaiser Ferdinand II. unterworfen wurden. Ulrich leistete diesem daraufhin den Treueid, wodurch er seine Güter behalten durfte. 1627 verlieh ihm Kaiser den Titel Semperfrei, mit fürstengleichen Privilegien. Ulrich unterstellte sich mit einem selbst geworbenen Kavallerieregiment dem kaiserlichen Generalissimus Wallenstein.
You have been warned about adding unsourced information to biographies time after time, yet you insist. Long story short, if you do it again I will simply refer to Wikipedia:ANI.--Catlemur (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding text from other Wikis
Its great resource to get info from others wikis....but there is a concern that you actually have not seen the sources you have moved over......must remember you need to seen the source to use it....dont assume its correct. This is just a heads up!--Moxy (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. My page on wikipedia was supposed to be for my own use. What I put on my own page is none of your business.Ernio48 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, freedom of thought is being well respected on here. You can't be politically incorrect. Guess it's just a norm these days. Lol.Ernio48 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing your personal beliefs and never has been. And there’s a huge difference betweeen “politically incorrect” and “outright nazi propaganda.” If your next edit isn’t a proper unblock request that specifically addresses all the reasons for your block, don’t expect to be able to continue to edit this page either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outright nazi propaganda? I hate Nazism as much as anyone else. Read again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ernio48&oldid=849872169 - There's no statements supporting Hitler or Nazism, nor was it written in an offensive tone. It's just a mere personal opinion about the state of things at a point we're all at today. It's nowhere near a nazi propaganda. Only a non-objective, biased person would interpret it that way.Ernio48 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
