User talk:Jamie53c

August 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "WikinonBot4", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Secretlondon (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon my username doesn't violate any policy. however secret London is a website with many employees. do you represent the whole website? if so how? please consider changing your username to something less confusing. thank you WikinonBot4 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your options are to visit the link given above to request a change of user name or to cease editing using this account. Otherwise you will be blocked for the reason given above. If wanted, ask for other opinions at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I will request user name change. wikinonbot4 was not intended to look like a "bot" hence the name non bot. sorry for this. will request name change WikinonBot4 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
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. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi WikinonBot4! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101 by all means please start a talk back instead of you reverting the page and furthermore reverting to a version that repeats the same paragraph twice. tagging admin WikinonBot4 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the duplication, however as to your addition, Youtube is not RS, thus cannot be used as a references. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101 please stop undoing my edits talk back page otherwise admins involvement will be necessary WikinonBot4 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD its on those wanting inclusion to gain consensus for disputed edits. Not the other way round. Your addition has been disputed thus its on you to gain consensus before the information can be added. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101 you appear to be delusional. I will be involving an admin if you revert. furthermore your nonsense excuse of a footnote reference to a YouTube video does not justify deletion of a whole paragraph. your bias is blatantly obvious WikinonBot4 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only source for the paragraph is youtube then the paragraph cannot remain, and its not "nonsense" see WP:RSPYT. FUrther knock off the incivility, saying that others {apper to be delusional} is uncivil and a borderline WP:Personal Attack. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101 no it is not the "only" source for a whole paragraph that contains several sentences. please stop engaging in a revert war. you clearly are biased and have an agenda. this will be brought to admins. please cease and disist from reverting and sending me personal messages. the talk back page is the appropriate forum WikinonBot4 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except no other source is present so youtube is the only presented source, further (again) per WP:ONUS its on you to gain consensus BEFORE the information can be readded. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikinonBot4 reported by User:Lavalizard101 (Result: ). Thank you. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikinonBot4,

It would benefit you to come to WP:ANI and WP:ANEW and defend your editing against accusations besides just participating on an article talk page. It's important that we hear from you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz will do. thank you. WikinonBot4 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz sorry. how do I access the discussion? is there a link you can send. I'm not familiar with this process. happy to participate and defend my edits. WikinonBot4 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the links I provided, WP:ANI. They are also in the message that Lavalizard101 left for you. Click on the link and you should be taken to that page. Do a search for your name and, voila! you'll find the discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I clicked on link wp:ANI and searched for my name. I hope I did it correctly. I added a comment by my account name. this is what my response is and what I posted.

Under WP:RSPYT, the reliability of a YouTube video depends on the origin of its content. In this case, the video is published on the official channel of Rabbi Gavriel Bechhoffer, a widely recognized and respected Orthodox rabbi and rabbinical court judge on the Beth Din of America. He is a notable public figure with an established reputation for expertise in Jewish law, meeting the criteria in WP:SELFPUB for self-published expert sources.

The video directly quotes primary source material (Kuntres Shmoi Shel Moshiach by Aharon Yaakov Lieberman) and includes Rabbi Bechhoffer’s own scholarly interpretation that the Rambam did not rule out the possibility of Moshiach arising from the dead according to halacha. This use is consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing policy:

The author is an established subject-matter expert.

The content is from the expert’s own official channel.

The statement is about the subject matter in which the author is recognized as an authority.

Given these factors, the video should be treated as a reliable source in this context. WikinonBot4 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]