User talk:Mevsherd

Hi Mevsherd! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's way too complicated. Mevsherd (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Are there rules about dates (BC vs. BCE, AD vs CE) and reverting what someone else changed? Mevsherd (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It can be frustrating at first! And some higher visibility articles have a much higher bar for editing than lower ones. For your first question, see MOS:ERA, and for your second, see WP:NOCON. If you are specifically thinking about your recent edit on the Jesus article that I reverted: that article has a VERY high bar for editing, especially the section you altered, as it was formed by consensus from dozens of editors (all far more knowledgeable than I) and needs more thorough discussion before such a change is to be sustained. Give it time - hopefully other editors will engage on Talk soon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That page says: "Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work." You didn't explain. Mevsherd (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I did. "Revert for the same reasons similar edits have been reverted in the past", and "no consensus, or even agreement from any other editor, for this change", specifically. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This "the same reasons similar edits have been reverted in the past" is not an explanation. I changed it because I couldn't find a source, and did find evidence that it isn't true. I kept raising questions in the "Talk" tab which nobody responded to, If nobody actually discusses, how do I get consensus? Mevsherd (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So, I pulled the wrong comment the first time. The "Rv for the same reason it’s been reverted before" comment was actually on a category another editor erroneously tried to apply to the article, which others had also tried to apply in error. There’s a verified history of that, and had nothing to do with you. However, in not mentioning it, you appear to acknowledge that I did in fact make the second reversion note, which means your statement both here and at the Teahouse that you have received zero feedback during reversions is objectively false. As for the edit you want to make: it’s going to take additional discussion. The current version has existed for a long time and was edited by dozens of people, all of whom believed the current wording to be correct. A single survey from a questionable source is not sufficient evidence to overturn that without a lot of discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Start small - just add a link or a citation, or fix a spelling error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The first reverted edit was 1 word, and the next was 2-3 words. Both reverters complained I had no "reliable source" but the original is unsourced, so that didn't make sense.. What are the rules for having a "higher bar for editing?" Mevsherd (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, somebody did it again, without explanation. Is it normal to revert changes without explanation? The link above about "consensus" says you're not supposed to revert people's edits without explanation, but sometimes there is a big gap between policy and practice. Mevsherd (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Many articles on WP suffer from poor or nonexistent sourcing; that is true. However, even if the prior version was unsourced, changing it without a reliable source to back up that change, and without discussing the change on Talk first, usually will be undone. If you want to make edits, even to sections that are currently unsourced, it needs to be reliably sourced per WP:RS. (This goes into longstanding WP policy regarding "stable versions" of articles, the essence being that if a version hasn't been changed for a long time, even if it's unsourced, that version is assumed to have editors' consensus by virtue of surviving so long. Thus, any unsourced edits to it should be challenged.) If you continue to be challenged on an edit, whether sourced or unsourced, you can post about it on the article's Talk page to try to gain consensus. If a majority of editors agree with you, then your edits likely will be unchallenged. These rules exist to ensure people don't just insert whatever unsourced (often, but not always, false) information they want to. Finally, if you think you're being unfairly singled out, you can reach out to an active WP admin here: [1]. TL;DR: Your edits need to be reliably sourced, or agreed to by others on the Talk page, even if they're only one word and even if the prior version was unsourced, assuming you're doing more than grammar/copyedit/layout fixes. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"and without discussing the change on Talk first, usually will be undone." Huh? The last 2-3 requests for discussion in "Talk" were by me--all ignored. My edit was consistent with the source already in the article. Mevsherd (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You need to give it more time. They haven’t been ignored - you’re just impatient. A lot of editors aren’t on here every day or even every week. WP policy (generally) is to give it 30 days. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see an example closure. These are an important step for editors making decisions and applying policy.

if you’d like to proceed, please draft a question here.

Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria#c-Iseult-20260407071900-RFC on including perspectives of Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Nationality Code Dw31415 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm afraid I don't understand this. I left a comment on the Jesus/Talk page. Mevsherd (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I’ll create a draft RfC tomorrow Dw31415 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Should the claims about what "Most Christians believe" be removed or modified?

• A. Yes, Removed
• B. Modified (please say how you would clarify that the source is not making an empirical claim.)
• C. No, the claims should remain.

01:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

(Insert your argument that the claim goes beyond what the source is saying). --Dw31415 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mevsherd, I think this is what the RfC should probably look like if I've captured your objection correctly. Please recap your argument here for a draft. Did you read about how RfC's work? All sides to a dispute make their arguments. Uninvolved editors are invited to make arguments, then we ask an uninvolved, experienced editor to review. Dw31415 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you really think the rules can be applied to "Jesus" with a popularity contest?

Various qualms:

1. I think the main problem is the behavior of the editors. They were minimally interactive, and then reverted claiming "no consensus." I asked repeatedly for sources, and none were provided. That's what I hoped to clarify at the Teahouse.
2. The RfC rules specify it is not to be used for questions about sources; it is "procedurally improper." This is about the rules on sources and consensus.

Mevsherd (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure how three editors responding four times in universal opposition to your change, over the course of the ~ 3.5 days between your initial post on Talk and your making the change that was universally opposed, qualifies as "minimally interactive" or "problematic", especially since you were given an explanation both in the reversion comments, and later, on your Talk page. 3.5 days is not sufficient time to overturn a consensus statement that was written by dozens of editors over months of time. Frankly, claiming that the problem is "the behavior of the [other] editors" when this is demonstrably false does not encourage others to cooperate with you. You are new, and we are willing to work with you and help you, but you need to learn patience and stop making objectively false statements about others' behavior if you want cooperation.

Now, as for sources: the source you are using goes on to say "This survey shows that too many Christians aren't Christians at all." Your source argues that, by definition, any person who calls themselves a Christian but does not believe the statement you are challenging, is not actually a Christian. This leaves us with an uncomfortable situation wherein, if we are to use your source, we must define who actually is and is not a Christian, usurping the person's own definitions and violating WP's policy - because a source cannot be partially reliable. Nor can we use survey results directly due to WP:PRIMARY. And all of this ignores three other facts: first, that the source argues the survey results have no bearing on the veracity of the statement you are challenging; second, that the survey only had American Christians in-scope, which is not a population large enough to negate the statement you are challenging; third, that when reviewed holistically, your own source implicitly supports the statement you are challenging. The onus thus falls on you to find a better source. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ideally, it’s not a popularity contest see Wikipedia:NCH. Regardless, it’s the tool we have available.

Regarding RfC’s for sources, we don’t use RfC’s for assessing whether a source is reliable, but we use them all the time for deriving how we should summarize the ones that are reliable. Please let me know if you would like to continue by formulating/summarizing your argument for deletion (or modification) Dw31415 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. The dispute is about whether there are any reliable sources. What are the tools for assessing that? Mevsherd (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you are arguing that the Ehrman source does not claim "Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God." in the public opinion sense, is that right? The fix for that is to modify the claim so it’s more consistent with the source (or remove it). I think you suggested something like "Most doctrines hold...". If you wanted to add some polling claims it would be up to you (see Wikipedia:ONUS) to identify sources for that. Dw31415 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, that's not the main observation, although it is mostly true.

The lead says: "Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament. "

That is dubious, and mostly unsourced by anything in the body of the article. I have asked about 10 times for a source, and none has been provided. The only reliable source on what most people believe is a poll. It's a statistical question, not a theological one. I volunteered the Ehrman as the closest thing to a source, because none of the objecting editors would provide one. It is not a reliable source for the following reasons. a) Ehrman is not a pollster nor does he cite one, b) his reference to "most Christians" is casual and conversational, and not the main subject of its paragraph, c) "incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah" is not the same as "both human and the Son of God" which is Ehrman's quote ("God the Son" is Trinitarian doctrine), d) Ehrman is describing the outcome of sectarian disputes from early Christianity about 2000 years ago; his reference to "most Christians" has to do with questions posed in missing previous paragraphs, e) Ehrman says absolutely nothing about "the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament."

It is disputable because, actually, it's very plausible that most Christians don't believe Christian doctrine; I gave a reliable poll that most American Christians think non-Christians can go to heaven, for instance.

The milder claim in the body of the article, sourced to Ehrman, is "Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God." That should also be removed, for reasons a, b, d above. Mevsherd (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You're welcome to put that in a RfC, if you think its procedurally proper. Mevsherd (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I recommend focusing separately (and sequentially) on the statistical claim in the body and genealogy. I’ll leave it with you if you want to paste that RfC as a new topic in Jesus talk (tag me and I’ll help with the RfC tag). Feel free to ask for a second opinion at teahouse. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC), edited 17:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply ]

I did that, but I'm not sure what's supposed to happen. Mevsherd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I’ll fix the tag. Dw31415 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Mevsherd, I fixed. Please be careful not to Wikipedia:BLUDGEON other editors who reply. It’s fine to rebut a point raised but I suggest pretending that you are writing to the future closer. Don’t try to get the last word on every reply. I mention this because it’s a common mistake made by new editors. Thanks and good luck. Dw31415 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your help, but this is a waste of time. The majority are not actually discussing what constitutes a reliable source. They're just giving their opinions on other matters and what they want the article to say. Mevsherd (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You’re welcome for the help. The polite thing to do now would be to withdraw the RfC. To do so just add a comment that you "withdraw" it and someone else will clean up the tags. If you’d like discuss more after a withdrawal, let me know. Dw31415 (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Within 24 hours, a bot will invite ~10 editors to comment. Dw31415 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's very odd that inviting people self-elected to be interested in a religious topic is Wikipedia's plan for bringing objectivity to religious topics. Mevsherd (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Thanks for contributing Henia Bryer. I was moved to read her story, and I added some more sources, as you'll see. Perhaps you could add a link to the article to the List_of_victims_and_survivors_of_Auschwitz - and there are probably other similar pages for the other camps she was a prisoner in. Lijil (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Great, thanks! Mevsherd (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed, this was a great article! It's well-written, informative and appropriately sourced. I wish I could say "a fun read" also, but given the subject matter, that wouldn't be accurate. Thank you for improving WP with this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Mevsherd, I see that you’re a new editor, we’re happy to have you here. Your recent edits at Israelites appear to be approaching what we call edit warring. You have deleted the same material twice. Can you please self revert your most recent edit? I will note that I only added this extra source per your request to add a supporting Bible verse. Mikewem (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, you added material that was being challenged in Talk, ignoring the reasons for opposing it. Also, adding a quote from Moses is not adding a source. Mevsherd (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. We’ll see what other editors say and go from there. Mikewem (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 03:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please immediately cease your pattern of making personal attacks and casting aspersions such as you did in your most recent comment here.

If, for whatever reason, you are not able to immediately cease your pattern of disruption, then our procedures say that the dispute should be moved to WP:ANI. Mikewem (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

By all means, follow "our procedures." I've been wondering how administrators enforce the rules, mainly when consensus isn't enough, but also regarding behavior. I will not stop describing my experience. Mevsherd (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

ONUnicorn I know you didn’t ask for this, but since you’re already involved and therefore wouldn’t be the one to enforce the rules in this situation, are you willing to assist this new editor? Is there any advice you would offer them at this stage, and will you explain how administrators enforce rules regarding behavior? Mikewem (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

First, to clarify, this is not an ANI notification. I saw that your notifications on Cdjp1's and Mikewem's User Talk pages were not formatted correctly. Though it's a moot point now, I have edited them both to what I believe you intended to post. Feel free to revert / edit further if not. For future reference, an example of the correct formatting is as follows (be sure to delete the "nowiki" tags):

• {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=Mikewem, and editor behavior, enforcing rules on sources and neutrality}}

Thanks, Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC