User talk:JustAChurchMouse

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JustAChurchMouse! 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 still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Thuc" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Thuc has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 4 § Thuc until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palmarian Catholic Church spamming / WP:UNDUE

Please do not spam what seems to be trivia about the Palmarian Catholic Church across multiple articles. Reliable sources on the subject need to state that some aspect about a subject is notable, not the unreliable claims of some external group. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced material sourced is from professor Magnus Lundberg (Uppsala University), some of these even have numerous sources from Spanish media. These individuals have been canonised as saints and are celebrated with feasts within this religion, thus it is directly relevant to the articles. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added material needs to be sourced to a reliable source about the article's subject, not to a source about the Palmarian Catholic Church, please see WP:UNDUE. Also note another editor's comments re: WP:ONUS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smyth

Hi JustAChurchMouse, Just as an FYI, I've replied to your comment on the Smyth talk page. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sedevacantism, 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. Veverve (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, 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. Veverve (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sedevacantism. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Veverve (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring on multiple articles to preserve your recent BOLD changes. You've also made multiple edits on Catholicism-related articles that suggests you are deeply opinionated on the faith. Please remember to separate your POV and interests from your edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This edit's name-calling is prohibited by policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Sedevacantism that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See [1] and [2] Veverve (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JustAChurchMouse,

I encourage you to participate in this discussion about your editing. It would help if you presented your perspective in this dispute. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously involved in the dispute with you now, but I'm almost certain I would have said this even if I wasn't. I can say from experience, if you don't stop reverting and continuing to add your disputed content and if you don't engage at ANI, and a lot more on the article talk page you're just going to get some sort of block. This will probably just be a partial block from the article to force you to engage but there is always a chance an admin will feel this is pointless and just indefinitely block you until you can convince someone to unblock you since you will not repeat your behaviour. Whatever the case, it'll be far easier for everyone if you don't force this block and instead change how you're handling this by yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 15:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, you have not been willing to discuss the concerns raised and as such have lost access to edit articles until you engage with the discussion and concerns raised about your edits. Star Mississippi 15:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

My sole reason for being on Wikipedia is to develop articles content and to do so reflecting sources, my main interest is religious subjects. I am currently in the process of developing the article sedevacantism. One editor User:Veverve, vaguely disputed two of the references and on that alleged basis, wholesale reverted hours of work and article development.

I opened a talkpage discussion to question why Veverve had done so and asked him to provide explicit evidence as to why he thinks those two references in particular could not be used. He couldn't explicitly do so, only providing vague subjective meandering. I asked Ververve if he disputed those two particular references (one of which now has an alternative from another source), to then tag them within the article, rather than wholesale revert everything. He didn't bother and returned to wholesale content removal. The discussion was not productive because Veverve simply Wikilawyered, didn't propose any ARTICLE CONTENT development at all or any sort of content based collaborative approach.

My contention is that because Verveve personally dislikes the subject matter of the article, he is deliberately trying to disuade and demoralise editors from even attempting developing it, which is contrary to the spirit and interests of Wikipedia (with this attitude nobody is going to bother even attempting to put the work in to lift up the quality of our articles). I understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project and support that, but the other person has to also be willing to develop CONTENT. I'm not here to endlessly waste time socialising and dancing around with subjective Wikilawyering, I'm here as a research content development guy. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 8 March 2025 (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.

You were blocked for your behavior, not that of others. You should rewrite this to reflect what changes you will make going forward. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you respond to the concerns at the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JustAChurchMouse:_edit-war,_use_of_sources_considered_as_unreliable_by_community_consensus thread. (You are not blocked from that noticeboard.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should also continue discussion on the article talk page dealing with concerns raised by multiple editors without personal attacks. Doing these things which you can do are more important than coming up with a better unblock. Show you can do better instead of just telling. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on what was said above. I will add that using personnal attacks and not assuming WP:GOODFAITH in your request for unblock (because Verveve personally dislikes the subject matter of the article, he is deliberately trying to disuade and demoralise editors from even attempting developing it, which is contrary to the spirit and interests of Wikipedia), especially since this is one of the reasons why you were blocked, shows you have not understood what the problem is. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]