User talk:71.112.246.224

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Hello, I'm Drill it. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Allium ursinum have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Drill it (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your recent editing history 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. Uranium Site (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Reading Central Catholic High School, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. I appeared to have unnerved you. Sorry, not my intent. But, how is this vandalizing? The organization in question is properly and officially known as the Catholic Church. To point that out in an edit doesn't constitute vandalism. In addition to the WP legality, please expand on your viewpoint concerning this matter. I realize there are other viewpoints, but, I fail to see why the default setting must be the "Roman" Catholic designation. The Christian Church has used the 'large C' designation, without the "Roman" appendage, from the time of the Church Fathers and has also indicated that that church is headed by the bishop of Rome. Yes, it was sometimes small c, but, they were referring to the same organization, interchangeably, which has preserved Apostolic succession to the present day. Please respond and if you have the time, thanks in advance. 71.112.246.224 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread and long-standing consensus on Wikipedia is that we can use "Roman Catholic" and that it is disruptive to remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I've been told that such a consensus exists and could not find it, except for a conversation between about four or five non-Catholics. Additionally, any claim that a movement or opinion can be described as 'widespread' can also be, in reality, spotty, disorganized and plagued with selective bias. Any personal insight you can offer concerning the title would be appreciated as well. 71.112.246.224 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Catholic vs Roman Catholic for the latest discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 71.112.246.224 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.