Nathan B2

Please remember to add sort keys when you make categories

I've noticed that you didany have any sort keys for Category:Affirming_Baptist_churches_in_the_United_States I added them for you. . Sort keys can be really helpful for other people wanting to find your categories. Keep up the good work!^SMason_Garrison 00:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Continental Reformed Protestantism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Continental Reformed Protestantism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Nathan B2, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nathan B2|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Anupam^Talk 23:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no financial interest. And you? Nathan B2 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Lutheranism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.
Anupam^Talk 23:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Methodism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.
Anupam^Talk 23:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Presbyterianism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.
Anupam^Talk 23:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello. Anupam (talk · contribs) forbids me from mentioning the existence of inclusive networks for LGBTQ people in sections that deal with the subject, without authorization ([], [], , [], [], []). Yet, mentioning an anti-LGBTQ organization doesn't receive the same treatment (Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in Anglican Communion)... He even accuses me of having financial interests, even though my contributions concern various movements. I wonder if this demonstrates neutrality? Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not "forbid" you to add a link to the advocacy group to relevant articles. You added a link to a U.S.-based advoacy group to a global article about Lutheranism. My edit summary indicated that the proper place for the link was at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (though even still, you were using a primary source). Note that I did not revert your edits there. After reverting your edit per WP:BRD, I opened up a talk page discussion. Instead of engaging there, you have tried to WP:CANVASS in various places (Exhibit A). Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Anupam^Talk 00:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

ReconcilingWorks brings together 1,138 inclusive churches, 2 universities and 5 seminaries in 2 countries (not only Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). A request to add secondary references that already exist in articles from inclusive organizations was not included in the content removal... The requirement for written authorization to mention inclusive organizations (national or international) is discriminatory... Nathan B2 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Read the lede of the article. It states "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada". That is only two denominations in North America, and yet you wish to add this to the global article about Lutheranism. That doesn't make sense, does it? Also, stop WP:CANVASSING and use the talk page of the Lutheranism article. Seriously, your pattern of disruptive editing is extremely frustrating. Anupam^Talk 00:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Reconciling Ministries Network brings together 1,439 inclusive churches in 5 countries, and this has been removed by you from Methodism... Furthermore, there are no rules requiring a minimum number of countries to mention an information that is referenced and present at the national or international level. The violence of your remarks saddens me... Nathan B2 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

You just changed the conversation about ReconcilingWorks to discuss the Reconciling Ministries Network? Why? Even still, the Reconciling Ministries Network represents one denomination in all of global Methodism. It is more suitable on the article about the United Methodist Church, not Methodism in general. I disagreed with your edits and per WP:BRD, you were reverted. Instead of canvassing, why aren't you using the talk page of the article to make a case for the inclusion of the advocacy organizations you wish to have in the article. Is there a reason why you're not using the talk page of the article to reach consensus on this issue? Anupam^Talk 00:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyways, as you pinged an administrator here, let's wait for one to arrive so that you can be reminded to follow WP:BRD and discuss controversial edits on talk pages of articles. Anupam^Talk 00:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw this because I'm watching Talk:Lutheranism. I happen to be an admin so I removed the "admin help needed" because this is a content issue which requires dispute resolution, not an admin. Please pick one article which has a contested edit and discuss the issue on its talk page (not at user talk). Discussions should be calm and should not suggest advocacy for anything (see WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE). Follow the 'dispute resolution' link given earlier but what it is saying is that if a discussion does not resolved the issue, an WP:RFC will be required. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello User:Johnuniq, thanks for your comment. I am in complete agreement with you. Following my revert of User:Nathan B2, I left a comment on Talk:Lutheranism. I hope that User:Nathan B2 will discuss his proposed edits there. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. The answer is provided on these pages. Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Primary"_does_not_mean_"bad". I am certain that we will find a peaceful solution (Nonviolent Communication)!

Nathan B2 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is part of an explanatory essay, not policy. But it is right. Sometimes a primary source is the best source (the obvious example is the one given - supporting a quotation). But what you cannot use a primary source for is a synthesis. We are writing an encyclopaedic article, not a history essay. If we want to write a section about marriage in a denomination or theological tradition, there are plenty of works by historians we could refer to so as to do so. Those works will contain a synthesis. Sometimes that synthesis may be premature - handling sources is never easy - but in all cases it will be their synthesis and not ours. Those works should be the basis of what we have to say here. And if they haven't thought to mention something in any of these works, that will answer the question of whether something is WP:DUE. I'll leave discussion of the specifics for the article pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mennonite Church Canada, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kitchener was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Inclusive church for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inclusive church is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclusive church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Baptist Convention of Mexico, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matamoros was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

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

John D. Rockefeller Jr.

added a link pointing to New York

William R. Johnson (minister)

added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)