User talk:Conrad940

This user may have left Wikipedia. Conrad940 has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Conrad940, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Iglesia ni Cristo worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. SunDragon34 (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For fighting for your beliefs Ironbrew (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Don't ever change! Ironbrew (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Ironbrew (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I support you this time. You don't mean any harm, and in your heart you're convinced that you're doing the right thing, so don't let anyone stop you, tell you you're doing wrong or impede you in anyway from making that INC article as great as it could be!--Ironbrew (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I've noticed your good work on Iglesia ni Cristo‎. It's not a topic I know much about, so I can't judge contributions easily. I'll just remind you to do your best to maintain the neutral point of view. That means that Wikipedia presents all significant points of view, without endorsing any of them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INC Workgroup[edit]

I've noticed you done a lot of contributions to INC related articles. I'd like to invite you to our workgroup at WP:WPINC, think of it as a focus group where we centralize our efforts of making quality INC articles. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to but i'd rather not. i won't be able to dedicate time to such an endeavor. even now i'm torn between many different interest. tnx for your consideration Conrad940 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppet and Request for Checkuser[edit]

As a longtime contributor in the Eli Soriano article I would like to invite you to share your experience with regards to self-multiplying personalities who would surface now and again seemingly for the sole purpose of whitewashing the article. I have already submitted an RFC here. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

~~I read the main article and basically added only those articles which do directly relate to the Iglesia ni Cristo. If you want an item by item justification,~~

New Era University is "affiliated" with the church

Christian Era Broadcasting Service is owned by the church

Ang Tamang Daan is produced by the church

Alagad is the church's party-list

Christianity is the "base" article for the church

Catholicism - the church claims to be the "correct" continuer of the "catholic" tradition, and is the church the iglesia sprang up from, so far as I understand

Persecution of Christians is a weak one, but is one of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo

Restorationism - the Iglesia ni Cristo is "restoring" the original church

Nontrinitarianism is one of the church's beliefs

the three "person" pages provide "background" on the three entities

Unitarianism - the iglesia is unitarian

Sola scriptura - not the phrase used in the Fundamental Beliefs, but an idea it holds with as per the FB

Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo - I'm guessing that's obvious

One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church - which the iglesia claims to be

Great Apostasy - which it says the RCC went through, though not necessarily in those words

Justification - The FB article lists disbelief in justification by faith alone, which is part of justification

Biblical canon - well, the Bible is pretty basic to the iglesia.
The articles need not be necessarily "directly related" to the iglesia, but contain information which is relevant to understanding the iglesia.
You are, of course, free to add or subtract any items you wish from the template. However, a large template like that one makes it a bit easier for people to go from one article to another, and will help indicate which articles are "relevant", if not directly related to, the subject. All those articles included are going to be of "Top" importance to the Iglesia group, as they are placed on the group's primary linking template.

~~I hope that answers your questions. But, like I said, feel free to make any additions or removals you like. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)~~ moved to Template_talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo Conrad940 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH[edit]

According to WP:SYNTH: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." In this case, "A" (INC's fourth source) means that INC doesn't believe that God is anything else but God the father. Source "B", the dictionary says that unitarian is the belief that there is only one entity that is God. Conclusion "C" is The reason why I'm thinking it's Synthesis is because there's no source that says directly that it's "unitarian". But if you found something that says unitarian ahead and use that. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I am wondering why you removed some supporting external links with a generalized note "anonymous websites. not WP:RS". Please explain what particular clause or condition in the WP:RS is violated by these websites. Should you not refer to WP: External links which clearly define the rules and restrictions of inclusion of such links? (what should be linked; links to be considered; links normally to be avoided) What do you mean by "anonymous website"? Do you consider a copyrighted website anonymous? Aren't Wikipedia editors anonymous too? In fairness to all concerned, please justify your removal of individual website clearly. In the meantime, please undo your revision to supporting external links. Thank you. 76.213.225.25 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they're mostly blog from anonymous writers. 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Previously, you mentioned "anonymous websites. not WP:RS", now "they're mostly blog from anonymous writers". So, I guess you are questioning the anonymity of the writers. Granting that these writers are anonymous, what did these writers violate? Why do you require them to use their real names? Are we (you and me) not anonymous also? Copyright laws allow the use of pseudonym and Wikipedia also allow the use of User Name and even a pseudonym to preserve anonymity (WP:USERNAME). In fact, Wikipedia, does not even recommend to use Real Name because of the vulnerability of harassment (WP:REALNAME). Please answer my other questions also, so we can understand each other easily. Thank you. 76.213.240.44 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish prolong this discussion. I just wish for fairness in dealing with this subject. I understand your concern about having a great article on the Iglesia ni Cristo and also the concern of other people who are trying to contribute something about it. If a supporting website violate a Wikipedia rule (WP:EL), then you are justified to remove them, but please explain clearly to prevent misunderstanding (WP:REVEXP). I only seek fairness on your part, if you cannot justify removal at this time (maybe you can do it latter), then, temporarily revert to the previous list of Supporting External Links. I hope, I have made my point clear and followed Wikipedia's guideline in resolving this matter. Please undo your edit appropriately. Thank you. 76.213.239.30 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well...[edit]

You've wasted five years of your life defending an organization that doesn't even want you as a member. The worst thing is that if Judgement Day struck tomorrow, you wouldn't even be saved according to your beliefs because you're not a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo. I don't know what you did, but it must have been bad for them to keep you out until now.--Ironbrew (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this nonsense? Could you please stop vandalizing other editor's talk page? Do something productive for once. Conrad940 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed: You're that crazy person who gave me those stars about a year ago! Conrad940 (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that someone who is a joke could take one, but I was wrong. And if you think this is vandalism, go report it, but you're scared that they're gonna get you again, Emico. I know it. You're like most Filipino guys, you are easily manipulated, you don't think for yourself and instead of fighting like a man you sneak around like a girl with your proxies and multiple usernames. Editing the Iglesia ni Cristo Wikipedia article isn't going to get you into heaven on judgement day. The Manalos don't care that you're doing this, you're not a member. Tell me this, do you think Ka Erdy is going to stand up for you on Judgement Day? That he cares about you since you got expelled for having an "un-Christian lifestyle" and your name isn't written in the book of heaven? We know who you are already... The INC already threw you out, do you think these people are as concerned about you as you are about them? The saddest thing here is that you're mixing up your true enemies and your true friends.--Ironbrew (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me see if I can break this down:

- you're calling me a joke

- you're threatening me

- you're typecasting me

- you're putting down filipinos

- and overall vandalism.

-- keep it up. i might take you up on that and report you. so you feel like a tough guy now and is you ego inflated enough? good, then maybe you can stop harassing me. Conrad940 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Soriano and Daniel Razon articles[edit]

Hi, I have recently nominated the article dedicated to the unnotable Daniel Razon on an AfD but as no knowledgeable person participated save you and myself, and because a trick was pulled (i.e. a faux RS was dropped and then the pro-keep editor went straight to ANI and reqested a speedy closure during the times that I am usually absent due to time zone differences) the decision of the speedy closure ended up as "keep".

Now, as a result of this tragic event, the same pro-keep editor experienced a high morale boost and, as expected, as soon as he started editing in favor of the subject a Soriano droid came crawling up from the sewers and started making complementary edits specifically adding local award nominations, unnotable awards, blogs and ADD-owned websites as references, and cajoling the said pro-keep editor to obliterate well-sourced information regarding Soriano's rape case etc. Here is a sample edit.

Consider this conversation. Those who have enough experience in dealing with all ADD related articles and familiar with the results of all checkusers that I've requested are fully-aware that this anon, just like all others, cannot be an impartial editor but another follower of the cult with probably dozens of socks. I would just like to give you a heads up on both articles, especially their respective talk pages. Thank you! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Conrad940,

As a perennial contributor to the article, I believe that your inputs are invaluable to this discussion. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Will Beback talk 07:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is libelous. It shouldn't be allowed until it is verified. Conrad940 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical matter, it's not possible to libel the dead, at least under US law. So let's avoid asserting there are legal issues involved and stick with the scholarly issues of getting the articles right. Will Beback talk 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree the entries are detrimental to the character of the subject? Conrad940 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But if it's verifiable we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether it's positive or negative. WP:NPOV. Will Beback talk 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi conrad[edit]

Just wishing you a good day!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.61.141 (talk • contribs) Conrad940 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi. care to explain why you hid Shannon Rose's comments? Conrad940 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP / WP:V issue[edit]

Claims about living people require better sourcing than a dead link. Your edit to Eliseo Soriano has been reverted. Active Banana (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliseo Soriano[edit]

Content presented in articles, particularly content about living people MUST be presented in WP:NPOV format NOT tabloid gossip interpretations.. Active Banana (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Any content that beings with "apparently" is completely inappropriate WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source you used is not in a language that I read and so I cannot place appropriate content into the article. But I CAN tell that what you inserted is NOT appropriate. Active Banana (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that YOU used the word "apparently" signals to me that the sources do not explictly support the claims that you are advocating be included into the article- and therefore simply removing "apparently" does not remove the WP:OR. Active Banana (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article, yes I am prejudging that anything that vaguely appears POV push, is very likely a POV push and needs to be stopped immediately. Active Banana (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had orignally apparently clicked on a different source, but I have now added the content that I think can be validly and NPOV presented from that source. Active Banana (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of god[edit]

Hi, you are clearly a single propose account adding negative content about the church and suchlike, there is also a thread opened at WP:BLPN where you can discuss. I don't think it is necessary to add the rape claims at multiple locations, in fact I know it is not, please don't replace it without support for your addition . Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, are you also the User:Shannon Rose account? Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Members, Church of God International? Anyway, you said:

Hi, you are clearly a single propose account adding negative content about the church and suchlike, there is also a thread opened at WP:BLPN where you can discuss. I don't think it is necessary to add the rape claims at multiple locations, in fact I know it is not, please don't replace it without support for your addition . Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering, are you also the User:Shannon Rose account? Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

sourced content, negative or not is source content. that's all there is to it. And no I am not Shannor Rose. Conrad940 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion in one place, thanks. I was asking because she was also a single purpose account with the single reason of adding negative content about this church. It is not the reason of existence of wikipedia to add every bit of titillating detail that can be cited in some obscure location to create articles that attack people, please consider this , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a single purpose account? And what's wrong with single purpose account? If that's all one has time for. And I believe is nobody's business whether a user decides to edit one or a million pages. Getting too defensive of your idol? BTW, are you a single purpose account? Conrad940 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts that don't like a living person simply come adding whatever negative content they can find anywhere and unbalance the article and create attack articles full of attack content. I am afraid I don't give a god damn about this person, I care only about the wikipedia and am especially interested in the protection of living people, be they good .. or bad people. I am a total independent. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said duly source content is content, negative or otherwise. You're making yourself the "negative" police when you don't have the authority. From what you just said you sound like a single purpose account, being a "negative" police that is. What you're doing is a dis service to the wikipedia community, removing duly source content claiming it's in another when it is not. Conrad940 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, having a citation is not a reason to include any content, please consider my well meant comments. I am not the negative police, it needs not posting at multiple locations. If you don't like this group have you considered getting yourself a blog where you can attack them as much as you want? Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we are here to add content. the content needs to be duly source. we are not allowed to editorialize. Conrad940 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are here to add negative content about this group that you do not like. Please consider the bigger picture, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion. You obviously NOT reading LET ALONE considering what I've said. Good luck to you. Conrad940 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer experience to luck , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You're edit warring again, removing sourced material, and calling the other editor a vandal. Per earlier warnings, I'm blocking your account temporarily. When the block expires please do not edit war again. The talk pages exist for discussion. If you have a problem with other editors contributions then raise it on the talk page or one of the many noticeboards. Will Beback talk 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Iglesia ni CristoFooter[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Iglesia ni CristoFooter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Independent Christian church[edit]

Template:Infobox Independent Christian church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]