Mark Osgatharp

Hello

I have anonymously edited a few Wikipedia articles over the past few months. Most recently I made some major changes to the article on Baptists. I registered this evening and hope to make some further refinements to that article, and maybe some others, in the future. Mark Osgatharp 07:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits without consensus

Mark - your recent edits to Baptist introduce a POV that takes the article in a different direction than has been decided by consensus in the talk pages and in the long history of edits and reversions. Please refrain from making edits that assert only one perspective and make sweeping changes that haven't been discussed first. Thank you. HokieRNB 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for your response. I do agree that Wikipedia editors need to be bold, and for the most part don't need permission to make edits. However, when an article such as Baptist has such a long history of refining and much discussion behind it, it does not serve the greater community to continue to assert one specific point of view. Consensus, in a general sense, is achieved when the maximum number of people agree with the process by which a decision was arrived at. Even if you hold a minority view (such as with the successionist view of Baptist origins), you can agree that the word "Baptist" includes more than that understanding and an encyclopedic article needs to reflect that. HokieRNB 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Thank you for experimenting with the page Baptist on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Dfrg.msc 23:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as evidenced by the diff: [1] it did look like vandalism. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course Mark, I'm happy to explain. This is how it looked to be vandalism to me (I of course refer to Line: 201):

• It was an un-sourced edit to an article which gets quite a lot of Vandalism
• Your account name has less than 50 edits to it
• You replaced a re-direct with "sodomy" which is a hit word on the vandalism filter

I apologize for any concern this has caused you. To improve my Vandalism fighting I showed the diff to another editor, he agreed that at first glance it did look like vandalism. Regards, Dfrg.msc 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hi Mark -- Some of your edits to Baptist and Baptist successionism over the last week or so have not always been as constructive as they might have been. It also appears that you might be editing from several IP addreses, but I could be wrong. I assume you mean well (as you should for everyone else), but please remember nobody owns any article and everything any of us do on Wikipedia is subject to the consensus of the editors. Please read WP:EL, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV for more on where I and apparently other editors might think you went a little wrong. And please do not enter into EW|edit or reversion wars. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated Welcome Banner

Welcome!

Hello, Mark Osgatharp, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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!

You can also so the above for more guidance. Novaseminary (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baptist. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Suggest you request more comments to get the views of the wider community. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War on Baptist

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baptist. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Novaseminary (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have reported your edits to the Admin. Notice Board here.

Novaseminary (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my note here which pertains to you. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you do not seem to be complying with the warning NJA gave you, I have again reported you to the Edit War notice board. Novaseminary (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 17:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Block notes: As noted at the second report against you at WP:AN3 in a week, the reasoning for the block is as follows: Aside from completely ignoring my prior warnings (1, 2, 3) and continuing to misuse undo by edit warring, you also started to dabble in pure disruptive editing by making comments such as this and this. Further, your edits made at the talk page are generally passive aggressive and would make consensus building difficult at best. NJA (t/c) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NJA, None of the edits I have made have been disruptive to anything other than the biased POV of the other editors. They have not tried to discuss the matter, they have only pressed me to bend to their biased POV of Baptist origins. I have verified everything I said. My only desire is for the article to acknowledge that there is a substantial body of scholarship which does not agree with their POV, while I have all along acknowledged that their POV is currently a majority view. I gladly admit that I have been caustic with them for their arrogance, bias and attempts to block my edits. For that I make no apology. By the way, I am not requesting to be unblocked, I am only giving my perspective of what actually took place.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough mate, but when you meet opposition the way to move forward is not to consistently edit war and resort to uncivil comments, rather the proper way is as was noted by me (here) on the article's talk page (which you directly replied to, so you did see it). Thus I recommend you get to grip with the relevant guidance whilst blocked. That you can make progress in a manner that will not lead to further complications. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NJA, Just remember, it takes two - or in this case five if I'm counting right - to edit war. Furthermore, when a man "politely" tells me to shut up I consider it a gross act of cowardice and incivility, especially so when he does it under an alias. In fact, I'd much rather a man just tell me to shut up than to tell me I can speak only if I agree with him.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All I can do at this point is to offer my advice to avoid further complications. My advice is get familiar with the dispute resolution guidance, as well as the need to cite reliable sources to satisfy the need for verifiability. Note that there are various noticeboards listed in the dispute resolution guidance, some dealing with verifiabile sources, theories, etc. Overall a read over those policy guides will help in preparing yourself in progressing your views in a structured and effective manner. NJA (t/c) 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NJA, I did cite reliable sources. But when dealing with these men no source will be reliable unless they deem it so. That is the way they operate. So far as resolving disputes by "consensus", it is impossible because they outnumber me. My only other recourse would be to try and get them blocked which is not likely to happen and which I'm not willing to do. So, if and when my editing privileges are restored, my only option is to make edits that I consider valuable and let them and you follow whatever course you deem necessary. I will, however, cease from making caustic statements toward them.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is most certainly not your only option (nor is it to be the best) -- you have atleast five options set out in a coherent structure listed on that guidance page I keep mentioning. Honestly, if you do anything in these 3 days, it would be to read WP:DR carefully. NJA (t/c) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent post to Talk:Baptist

I agree with DJ Clayworth's comment left on Talk:Baptist. I don't know whether you were implying damnation or not with this post (since your writing was a bit unclear), but wikiepdia is not for personal attacks. I say this not to personally attack you, but to make clear that you have been warned. Please do not continue along this path. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. Novaseminary (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:TheDippersDipt.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TheDippersDipt.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Hi there. Every image on Wikipedia requires an image copyright tag; the images you have uploaded recently do not have any. The scans of the old books are in the public domain, so I have added image copyright tags myself, but I can't add anything to your own photos- instead, you have to choose how to release them. We normally recommend Creative Commons Attribution ShareAkike 3.0- you can release it under that license and add a copyright tag (which will stop the images being deleted) by adding {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image page, which will show as a silver box. The exception is File:WynneArkansasPeachCrateLabel.JPG- as the label is almost certainly copyrighted by the company in question, the photograph is not yours to release, and could only be used if it meets our very strict non-free content criteria, which this one does not. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Baptists

could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page before adding that information to the article again? The usability of John T. Christian is in serious doubt. As my edit summary said, that's the whole reason I reverted you - to bring attention to the discussion. But you're not participating. What's going to end up happening if you don't participate is that what you added is just going to keep getting deleted by someone.Farsight001 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent disruptive edits

Please see here and here regarding your recent disruptive edits and circumvention of a block. Novaseminary (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Long-term edit warring at Baptists. Evasion of the block on 75.151.58.242. Abuse of multiple accounts. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected).

Normally, I would offer to lift this block if the person would agree to follow consensus in the future. But the history of this talk page shows you've received plenty of advice in the past and have chosen not to follow it. There was an extensive discussion following your previous three-day block, and it seems to have led to no change in your behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You should receive extra credit for the personal attacks you left on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

March 2012

Please don't reinsert material that is not sourced as you have done, again, at Baptists. This is especially required in particularly sensitive topics such as religious controversy. I (and the other editors who have reverted you in the past) am not trying to be a jerk. WP:V is really important on Wikipedia. If you don't agree with how Wikipedia works, feel free to try to convince editors to change it. But, please don't break the rules. It will get you blocked again. I imagine you have better things to do. Shoot, you could write a letter about how terrible the Baptists article on Wikipedia is, where it gets it wrong, what your personal experience is, etc., and then post it on your own website or on a website that allows for that. Here we just ask that you show enough respect for folsk to at least make an effort to play by the rules. I hope you agree that is not too much to ask. Novaseminary (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Baptists shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing and abuse of multiple accounts, as you did at Baptists. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the various admissions on the article talk page, you are the same person as the IP-hopping editor who has been conducting a years-long revert campaign on this article. Recently I shut down the IP with three months of semiprotection, and here you are jumping up to continue the war, by making the same edit. Your actions have been previously discussed at the edit-warring noticeboard, as can be seen from the notices above. It is not easy to see what future you can have on Wikipedia, when you are so determined to impose your own views regardless of what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)