Nolicamaca

Special:MobileDiff/1097235521

@ Li Nolicamaca (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Liz Nolicamaca (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin culture. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Bombay under Portuguese rule (1534–1661), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bassein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Preternatural

added a link pointing to Transcend

Rosary of the Seven Sorrows

added a link pointing to Chaplet

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fort Bassein

added a link pointing to Bassein

Milagres Church (Mangalore)

added a link pointing to Nossa Senhora

Our Lady of the Miracles Cathedral, Kallianpur (Milagres Cathedral)

added a link pointing to Nossa Senhora

Propaganda during the Reformation

added a link pointing to Protestant Revolution

Vasai Creek

added a link pointing to Bassein

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nestorianism and the church in India

added links pointing to Greek Empire, Persian Church and Assyrian Church

Gujarati language

added a link pointing to Guzerat

List of edible seeds

added a link pointing to Groundnut

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Perpetual virginity of Mary 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing I only did my second revert from early to ancient Christians here Special:MobileDiff/1033148701

I don't intend to indulge in edit warring, the 2nd revert was done to post a msg on talk page for discussion

Would you like to me undo my 2nd revert? I couldn't find the template that might be put in the lead, inviting editors to the talk page. I guess ^[discuss] might do it. Nolicmahr (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have not broken 3RR. The 2nd revert was done to post a link to the talk page for discussion: Special:Diff/1033148701. I never intended to go to war. Nolicmahr (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@@Tgeorgescu: Are going to reply plz? I did not break the 3RR the 2nd revert done to post a link to talk for discussion Special:MobileDiff/1033148701

Nolicmahr (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu: I intended to discuss, there's a link to the talk page in the 2nd revert and not want to go war. What would you like to me do? Nolicmahr (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no special requests for you. Just mind this rule. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks I never intended to break it and never will.

These were the two good faith edits in between the two reverts:Special:MobileDiff/1033124930 was done to remove "the" for grammar Special:MobileDiff/1033131914 was done to correct doctrine to dogma as per the citation

That makes it two reverts only. Since you have added this thread to discuss or warn, please clarify whether you agree or not?

And what about the more experienced editor (Special:Diff/1033084559) who has been cyberstalking my edits, he's been freaking me out reverting my edits on a number of pages? Why am i the only one being warned? Talk:Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Early_vs_Ancient_Christian_theologians Nolicmahr (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu: Just keeping a list of edits being cyberstalked and reverted for future references WP:BITE Special:Diff/1033008183 Special:Diff/1033008598 Special:Diff/1029135115 Special:Diff/1029134437 Special:Diff/1030692391 Special:Diff/1029133374 Nolicmahr (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I had ignored earlier stalking and reverts by the user Special:Diff/1033084559 until this revert happened all was fine Nolicmahr (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Special:Diff/1033233017 Nolicmahr (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

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.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Renat 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unionism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brothers and Sisters in Christ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Brothers and Sisters in Christ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Eastern Christianity

added a link pointing to Greek Church

Saibini

added a link pointing to Mahratta

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nolicmahr (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, List of Neolithic archaeological sites, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Georgethedragonslayer: How does this apply to me? As per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/India–Pakistan_conflict I have already crossed the 500 edits and 30 day account criteria. Nor have I misbehaved in any way as of yet Nolicmahr (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no such criteria. The note say it "does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date". This notice is nothing more than awareness note for those who edit Indian subjects. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

Thanks for joining in a healthy discussion @ Talk:Superstition about definitions. Since you have opened discussion with other user I do not want to jump in their at this point but would like to understand your perspective on following points

Your concern is about User:GOLDIEM J is using word 'any' at the place of 'a' or you do not agree with usage of word 'irrational' itself.

If it is the second case then

a) Word 'irrational' seem to have been used in at least 3 sourced definitions @ Superstition#Definitions

b) If one visits Draft:Irrational beliefs and Draft talk:Irrational beliefs usage of word 'irrational' seem to be coming from side scholarship of psychology and their usage is almost neutral

c) I discussed an instance of superstition @ humanities desk where in, until 20th century, some communities used to believe that 3'rd child would be unlucky for either of parents, now we decline existence of irrationality? because it would hurt folk, cultural or religious sentiments?

d) I doubt theists can agree on a definition of 'superstition' among themselves from theistic perspective without affecting interest of one religion or other religious belief, it is agnostic side only can bring in most neutral perspective.

e) Any ways most neutral definitions of 'superstition' will be pro science and affect theist side at least to some extent. so neutrality does not mean we do not take definition as given in sourced content on board but it means we include criticism of those definitions and article contains adequate criticism of definitions that way I find article neutral enough.

I wish to understand your perspective

Thanks for joining in healthy discussion Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am not challenging scholarly works and i cannot afford to research them as of now, I just disagreed with the stereotyping of all or "any" belief in supernatural beings as superstition. The edit Special:Diff/1040598867 suggested that superstition is "any" thing "irrational or supernatural", which appears as if irrational or supernatural are somehow interchangeable with similar meanings.

The editor used "any" while the Merriam website for example uses "a", the edit was ie WP:OR, a conclusion not specifically found in it, I felt this was stemming from Antitheism/ WP:POV.

Of course belief in paranormal entities such as elves can be superstition, however supernatural beings such as a God or deities are considered religion nor superstition as far as I can see. Nolicmahr (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bookku: commented above Nolicmahr (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining your perspective. This defining is complex issue so we will keep discussing and working on it. Look forward to your continued support to this discussion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ultra-religious. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Ultra-religious until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button   located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Citing a book from nearly 150 years ago is not particularly great. Whatever useful information it contains is to be found in far more recent works, which are also likely to be based on more modern methods and make reference to the breadth of knowledge on specific accumulated over the period. See also WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. If you have access to it, an ideal way to begin would be for you to look up your local university library or online repositories like JSTOR for appropriate sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your Welcome Nolicmahr Mx. Clarks (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Goa_Inquisition#Vandalism_by_User%3AGotitbro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:C8F:2D2A:D325:2D53:6D7:AF0E (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Brothers and Sisters in Christ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Brothers and Sisters in Christ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Nolicamaca. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Neolithic archaeological sites, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Nolicamaca. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Neolithic archaeological sites".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Arjayay I would disagree, this is a misunderstanding or overreaction.

WP: COMMENTARY says new analysis or own thoughts? Does it mention links? What new material have I added?

Special:Diff/1097565111

The lead mentions disputed territories of India without the related links, I just added the relevant WP: Links

You seem to favour the CPI or CPCs POV or don't want to WP: Link the page to related articles ie the disputed territories on a page about India.

Nolicamaca (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Changing to "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" is a clear PoV - Wikipedia does not decide who is the "rightful" owner, or whether one side or another is an "occupier" - we solely report the de-facto position - it is part of Pakistan - Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Arjayay If that is so, then use your time to get Pakistan occupied Kashmir deleted for "POV" rather than pushing your analysis or censorship on me.

FYI: Links exist on WP and because they meant to be used.

The page mentions disputed territories but you do not want them linked because of your POV. They not my own thoughts. That is a false accusation. Nolicamaca (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please note that Pakistan occupied Kashmir is just a redirect, not an article, because of the current policies - Arjayay (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Arjayay I know it's a link i have not said it's an article

Yes it's not deleted The current policies allow for it to be used Nolicamaca (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Khatri, you may be blocked from editing. There is no preference for redirects over WP:COMMONNAMEs of the article. Stop POV pushing obscure, unsourced, hoaxes, obsolete terms and phrases, redirects of which you have created, mostly unsourced. I've seen you pushing your redirects in many articles. Next time I'll report you to ANI. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate it very much if you would submit this article for deletion. The Times of India article listed in the References section has nothing to do with the term "Saibini", the word is not even mentioned in the text. In the next couple of references, there's absolutely no equation of the Virgin Mary with the Hindu goddess Santeri. The last reference is a book by Maria Aurora Couto that uses Priolkar's discredited book on the Goa Inquisition as its primary source, in order to promote a Hinduised and Sanskritised version of Christianity as the template for Goa. (Again, the elitist authoress assumes that Goan Catholics were uneducated about their own religion.) 1.39.31.58 (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saibini, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saibini until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Maritime discovery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Maritime discovery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Goa, Damaon& Diu 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/2023 May 23 § Goa, Damaon& Diu until a consensus is reached. Bastewasket (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw this question which did not get an answer. I would assume the problem has been fixed by now. Do you know anything?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Vchimpanzee Yup. The WP:Citation bot needs to be activated, in order for it to work on any page, because it works manually. WP:Anomie Bot works differently ie automatically. Nolicamaca (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Union Territory of Damaon, Diu& Silvassa 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/2023 July 9 § Union Territory of Damaon, Diu& Silvassa until a consensus is reached. Bastewasket (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Damaon, Diu& Silvassa 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/2023 July 9 § Damaon, Diu& Silvassa until a consensus is reached. Bastewasket (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect MOS: OL 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/2023 December 5 § MOS: OL until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply