User talk:Acdc250

Welcome!

Hello, Acdc250, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! MartinPoulter (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Immaculate Conception, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article [1] a reliable source?

[1] Dabrowski, P.M. (2013) Multiple visions, multiple viewpoints: apparitions in a Polish-German borderland, 1877-1880. The Polish Review 58(3): 35-64. Acdc250 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acdc250! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Transubstantiation that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Transubstantiation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my latest edit did give a source [6] but probably you think it is not a reliable source. Is the Dominican Friars a reliable source: https://www.english.op.org/godzdogz/councils-of-faith-lateran-iv-1215/ ? Please reply before I edit. Acdc250 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, and you obviously haven't read WP:SYN as I requested below. The source does not indicate that use of the term "transubstantiation" and Lateran Council had any connection to the miracle. Your edit suggested a connection that is not there. You have synthesized your own conclusion from the source. Carefully read WP:SYN. The reliability of the source may be adequate to summarize the miracle. As a source to make a connection between the phrase you added with the beginning of the sentence, it's worthless. There is an article on the Miracle of Lanciano that has far better sources than the one you cite. And the Dominican source you link above about the Fourth Council of the Lateran has nothing about either Lanciano or transubstantiation, so it is worthless for supporting your edit. Don't add the edit to Transubstantiation again. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, what if I add "in 1215, 'at the time many Eucharistic miracles were reported.'" as from the Dominican source, will that be considered to be connected with the Lateran Council with a reliable source? I don't think it is a synthesis since the Dominican source says that at the time of Lateran Council. I did not edit anything awaiting your reply. Acdc250 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Lateran Council confirmation of transubstantiation is linked to Eucharistic miracles but this point has not been raised in the wiki article. Acdc250 (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Dominican source does have something about the Lateran IV decree (or council) because it says "Canon 1 reiterated the creeds, including an important reference to Transubstantiation, at a time when many Eucharistic miracles were being reported." Surely, the word "Transubstantiation" appeared and Canon 1 refers to the Lateran IV decree, and Eucharistic miracles were there. So, can I edit the wiki page? Thanks! Acdc250 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're not getting it. Or perhaps you don't want to get it. There is no connection between Lanciano in the eighth century and the origin of the term "transubstantiation" at Lateran in the thirteenth century. You are trying to forcefully shoehorn Lanciano into an article on transubstantiation. As for other Eucharistic miracles, you have provided zero evidence for a connection to origin of the term. That's probably because there is no connection, at least none that is reliably sourced. Since you can't seem to get the hint, let me be a little more direct. I'm not endlessly entertaining your misguided efforts. If you add Lanciano (or anything else about Eucharistic miracles) to Transubstantiation again without first getting a clear WP:CONSENSUS at Talk:Transubstantiation, you will be defending your actions at WP:ANI or getting a WP:BLOCK for refusing to do so. Sorry to be blunt, but you are so hellbent on putting Lanciano into the article that I have no choice. Wikipedia has policies (and a core policy is WP:SYN which it seems you still haven't read), and you have to follow them like all of us. Try editing elsewhere besides this article. You may be able to make some good contributions in other articles, but not on Transubstantiation with your current mindset. Now, I'm finished here, and I wish you the best. If you want to discuss other articles feel free, but no more discussion from me on this topic. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit was about the Lateran IV decree due to many Eucharistic miracles being reported at the time. It was not about Lanciano miracle. I will raise this issue in the talk page of Transubstantiaion. Acdc250 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you miss the point. The problems with your edits aren't limited to the mention of Lanciano. Read WP:SYN. Stop beating this dead horse and wait to see if a consensus develops on the article's talk page to support your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Transubstantiation, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, stop inappropriately marking edits as minor. Read WP:MINOR. Sundayclose (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Transubstantiation. READ WP:SYN. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Probability Ranking Principle (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by InterstellarGamer12321 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There is currently a bit too much unsourced information in the article. The notability also seems to be borderline, so I would recommend adding more references with significant coverage of the subject to establish notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Probability Ranking Principle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acdc250! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Probability Ranking Principle

Hello, Acdc250. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Probability Ranking Principle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]