LongIslandThomist914

Welcome!

Hello, LongIslandThomist914, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to New York State Senate. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien

Hi, I see that despite your very few edits to this project, you are in fact a fairly long-established editor, so, welcome.

However, I'm sorry to see that you have immediately reverted my careful edits to the J. R. R. Tolkien article.

I presume that you are not aware of the method of reaching consensus here on Wikipedia, which is "Bold, Revert, Discuss". This means that any editor (you) may add material; any other editor (me) may revert or modify it; and if the first editor (you) disagrees, to start a discussion thread either on the article talk page, or on a user page, to reach consensus. The opposite is to do what you just did, which was to revert again in what is called "edit-warring"; this is forbidden.

It may be useful to note that this article stands at the head of around a hundred articles covering many aspects of his thought and writings, both popular and scholarly; and that (for what it's worth) I've brought over 40 of those to "Good article" status, meaning that they have been independently reviewed against a set of published criteria.

It may also be worth noting that the article is now far over 100,000 bytes in length, a figure which is is a rough measure of the sort of length that we imagine most readers can comfortably cope with, given that they are often reading on small screens nowadays. Anything that adds to this length is to be considered very carefully; and as I've hinted, there are many other articles where additional material could be placed, rather than at the topmost level.

Finally, I'd note that I only trimmed your material very lightly: I considered an outright revert but attempted a compromise, leaving as much of it as seemed to benefit the general reader. The rest seemed, and still seems to me, to be rather specialist, even Roman Catholic, in flavour, and as such best avoided in a top-level article — it might make more sense in an article on his religion, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap,

Thank you for you review of my edits, I appreciate any feedback as I still relatively new to editing Wikipedia. However, I do not feel as though my recent edits pose a serious risk to this, but rather I sought to develop the sections on Tolkien’s religious and political views. The section before my edits, and even still to some extent now, really only take a narrow slice of his views and make them fairly prominent, and are not really holistic. I do not believe, as they existed, they really captured Tolkien’s views accurately or wholly. As to the “Roman Catholic, in flavour” nature of my edits I will only say this: Tolkien himself was a devout Roman Catholic, and his letters are suffused with his Catholic belief and to deny this in entirety would be a disservice to Tolkien, his beliefs, and to people who hold similar beliefs. I have not tried to editorialize his faith in anyway but have merely tried to show what he thought. I tried to add appropriate links to other Wikipedia articles to give proper context to his views and to perhaps help non-Catholics or non-Christians understand where he was coming from, especially with regard to biblical references. Like I said I’m not trying to proselytize but merely show what he thought, just a simple reporting of the facts. I don’t believe anything I added even necessarily assumes the veracity of the Catholic faith, but is just to say “this was Tolkien’s belief, this is what Catholics like Tolkien believe.” His faith was obviously a huge part of his life and permeated almost everything he did, and greatly influenced his thinking about almost everything.

I would be happy to trim some of the quotes if they are too lengthy, but I think deleting them outright is a bit silly and almost vindictive. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for discussing. If I were being vindictive I would a) have reverted your whole set of additions, and b) issued a formal warning template or invited administrative action. Obviously I've done none of those things, so let's leave the adjectives about other editors out of this please (it's against policy, too).

I have suggested two possible courses of action:

1) trim, which of course I've already attempted; if you want to go down that route, feel free, it would be helpful, you know what I'd do in that direction and more would be useful.

2) split the detailed material to a new article (or more than one), leaving behind a section with a short summary of that article (a paragraph) and a "main" link to that article at its top, like this:

=== Tolkien's views on XYZ ===

{{main|Tolkien's views on XYZ}}

Tolkien held strong views on XYZ, including ....................

Perhaps trimming would be the best place to start. If you are developing a new article, you can begin it in your own user-space as User:LongIslandThomist914/Tolkien's views on XYZ (or whatever title); that allows you to work on it with minimal chance of disturbance from other editors. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive preaching. If you continue to try and force your beliefs on Wikipedia pages/editors , as you did at J. R. R. Tolkien, you may be blocked from editing here all together. This is an Encyclopedia it is not your (or a) church, we do not care about your beliefs. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it disruptive? This is what the man himself believed no? Is it not a section about his religious beliefs? None of my edits assume the veracity of the Catholic faith, but merely expressed the actual thoughts of Tolkien who was himself a devout Catholic (and there were many other examples to choose from in his letters). Please keep your nasty comments to yourself. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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 J. R. R. Tolkien, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this going to turn into an issue? Please what about my last bout of edits was “vandalism”. You seem to have an issue with a discussion of religious belief. I’m giving you an opportunity to explain yourself because I do not want this issue to persist. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Consistent life ethic; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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).

LongIslandThomist914 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Shouldn't the burden be on Binksternet to show why my edits should be removed and seeking consensus before tearing into another user's edits, rather me having to defend my own edits? Especially since it seems Binksternet has a penchant for engaging in these pedantic edit wars and for inserting himself into areas where he's fairly ignorant? Indeed on the very page in question other users have noted his edit warring and disruptive habits. I hope something can be done about this LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

None of this approaches an acceptable unblock request. See WP:GAB and WP:NPA, along with WP:EW which is the policy you are accused of violating. Note that further personal attacks may result in your account being blocked for considerably longer or even indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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 may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Integralism. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Overreliance on primary sources for article development

You first came to my attention because of complaints about your editing pattern at the J.R.R. Tolkien biography. You had been inserting too many quotes from Tolkien to describe his state of mind, starting with this addition in August 2020. I ended up removing a great many Tolkien quotes per WP:PSTS, to the satisfaction of most of the page participants. However, you proposed a new article containing only Tolkien's quotes which would have allowed you to continue your preferred style, against policy.

Apparently you had been violating PSTS earlier than August. You added your interpretations of the primary source Catechism to the Integralism article a month earlier with this addition followed by more. And you stood on the Catechism a year ago with this change to Homosexuality and religion. Before that, you edit-warred with El C at the Incest article to add more primary source Catechism interpretation here.

You must stop adding primary sources to articles, as you have been relying on them to develop the article rather than to pin down a particular fact. You have been violating WP:No original research with these edits. The solution is very easy: find third party sources that discuss the issue and summarize them for the reader. Don't cite the Catechism. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

I'm serious! Just cut it out, these violations of WP:No original research.

You wrote in regard to Catechism 2419 to 2425 that "the missions of the Church and political authorities are distinct" which is supported by the cite, because the cited source says that the Church "bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities". But then you shoot from the hip to say "And therefore the teaching of the Church affects political, economic, and social relations." This conclusion is your own, unsupported by cite. And in any case, the cited source is discussing the Moses commandment "thou shall not steal", so you are putting far too much into it.

You are consistently trying to put a political angle on Church teaching, which tells me you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Hounding_by_user_Binksternet, you were asked by Drmies and Bishonen to "stop violating the No original research policy", advice you have chosen to ignore. It's a hard policy, not something you can negotiate. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Binnksternet

"2420 The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."199 In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships."Catechism 2420

I.e. it is not the Church's job to formulate political policy nor to act as a legislator, however the Church's teaching does set guidelines and principles for political action, including within the economic realm. The church intervenes in politics, as it clearly says, "when the fundamental rights of the person or salvation of souls requires it." "Moses commandment" you mean the Ten Commandments? The church has developed its social doctrine based off the Seventh Commandment's prohibition against stealing. I don't know how I could be reading "far too much into it."Yet you accuse me of "shooting from the hip" where it seems like you haven't even read the citations.

Unfortunately it seems like you are an angry, ignorant individual with too much time on their hands and an axe to grind.LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's your own personal interpretation that the Church instructs its followers to intervene in politics, based on "when the fundamental rights of the person or salvation of souls requires it." Nothing explicit in there about politics or political action. I will continue to push back against political activism on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020: final warning

LongIslandThomist914, I see you are edit warring at Integralism to restore, over and over, long quotations from the Cathecism, without even giving a reason in your edit summaries. Binksternet is also edit warring (don't do that, Binksternet), but at least they consistently provide arguments in the edit summaries. Neither of you has set foot on Talk:Integralism. I don't like that from either of you, but especially not from you, LongIslandThomist914, since you are the one attempting to add text to the article. The first time you were reverted, you should have taken it to talk to try to get consensus for your changes, instead of reverting over and over. I note you have been blocked for edit warring at Integralism before, so you obviously know the rule.

As Binksternet says, I did indeed warn you at WP:ANI, in this post, about original research based on primary sources. To make sure you see it, I'm warning you again here on your own page. I've told you before, and I'll tell you again: Binksternet is an experienced Wikipedia editor (though possibly not a theologian; neither am I) who is giving you good advice. I quote his summary above: "The solution is very easy: find third party sources that discuss the issue and summarize them for the reader. Don't cite the Catechism". That's it in a nutshell. If you don't start listening to experienced users and administrators here, I'm afraid you'll crash and burn. Don't edit war and don't add great swathes of primary sources to articles, nor violate our No original research policy in any other way, or you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | tålk 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC).

Note that Bishonen and I were taking different actions at the same time. I have chosen to block you indefinitely for violating WP:NPA. There's no excuse for you to call another editor "angry, ignorant". This block is meant to remain in place until you apologise for your personal attack and until you commit to zero violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOR going forward. Any admin may unblock you if they are convinced you will change your approach in this regard. WP:GAB explains how to request an unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, and on advice from others, it is inappropriate for me to ask you to apologise. While there are circumstances I may do that, this isn't one of those. Personal attacks aren't appropriate, but it'd be sufficient here for you to commit to no further violations of WP:NPA and WP:NOR. Both sides got a bit heated here and my concern is about future actions here on the Wikipedia; let's let the past be the past. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

[Response full of personal attacks has been removed. Bishonen | tålk 18:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC).]

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

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

---

If you think there are good reasons 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.

UTRS 37645 declined

UTRS appeal #37645 has been declined.

Sorry, but I have to assume you were already doing that to the best of you ability. That you lost talk page access does not inspire confidence.

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that either the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UTRS appeal 39883

Hi,

I'm posting this here in case there are any further violations of any of Wikipedia's policies. I have now unblocked you with the permission of Yamla as a result of the above unblock request at UTRS. We have decided to give you a second chance. However, if you violate any of Wikipedia's policies in the future, you will be blocked immediately without notice. -- 5 albert square (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack edit

"Hung" or "Hanged"... I used the word "hung" in my edit because that word is what the NYTimes used in their article. I try to be as precise as possible concerning sources' wording without veering into copying/plagiarism. I'm fine with either term - thanks for the thanks. Shearonink (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The Times must’ve updated the article because now it says “hanged”. Thank for your edits though and making it more precise LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)