User talk:Dizzzer

God is genderless. It's commmonly known

December 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ezio Auditore da Firenze, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your step

Edits such as this one violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and in view of your previous transgressions you're quite close to getting blocked. Please keep your personal opinions to yourself! Favonian (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note [1] and [2] where you were reverted by 2 editors, both saying your edits were original research. I also reverted you today where you piped Christian mythology so it read Christianity as that was obviously not appropriate and disguised the sense of the link. If you continue you will either be blocked again, perhaps indefinitely, or topic banned from religious articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my reply on my talk page. It looks as though you know nothing about Christian mythology. First, we actually have an article on Christian mythology which was the link. Secondly, Christian theologians write about the subject. This has nothing to do with biased terms, it's a term used by Christians as well as non-Christians and we have plenty of sources for it. The link was meant to go to the article, you can't just change it because you don't like an academic subject. Read the article. eg "George Every claims that the existence of "myths in the Bible would now be admitted by nearly everyone", including "probably all Roman Catholics and a majority of Protestants". Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have asked you to read WP:EASTEREGG. The link went to Christian mythology (a subject which does not argue that Christianity is a myth), and should not be made to appear as though it goes to Christianity - and your opinion or mine shouldn't matter to this issue. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You've added unsourced commentary to a quotation at Samson where I've reverted you, you added material not in the source at Chronology of the Bible where another editor reverted you, and you removed the word 'fantasy' at [[10,000 BC (film) - all without explanation. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please make sure that edits you make are in line with cited sources. The source used here discussed Judaism, and did not "assume".

Given your past troubles, I recommend you do not alter article text unless you have access to the source cited. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mafia II without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Chamith (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm JQTriple7. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to There Will Be Blood seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JQTriple7 ^talk 05:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Belshazzar. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is a movie about it, look it up. Dizzzer (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't tell other editors to go "look it up"; the burden is on you to locate reliable sources. Second, I did attempt to look it up, and found no such film exists. Your Wikilink was invalid, so you're going to need to produce a WP:RS which documents its existence. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hi, I'm just leaving you a message that an edit you made to the article on L.A. Noire that you made, was reverted by another user. The reason you gave for the edit, quoted as the following - "it's based on real life cases throughout the 40s after all, all compressed in one year, and with real people" - had issues to it. Firstly, the game is influenced by Film Noir and the Los Angeles of the 40s, and secondly, the game is purely fictional; even the people who produced it have a disclaimer during the loading of the game, that states it is a fictional piece of work. Thirdly, you gave no citation to back your reasoning, and for that reason, if I had seen it, I would have done the same as the user who did revert it.

Please be careful with your editing. Wikipedia welcomes people to edit articles, but not if they put in information with no references to sources that can back up what they edited. GUtt01 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were real life figures shown (Micky Cohen, Johnny Stampanado, Mayor Bowren, etc.) and mentioned (Jack Dragna, Guy Mcafee, "Brenda", The Black Dahlia, etc.). Also, I forgot the main source, but on the La Noire wiki pages of various cases, it reveals that most of them were based on actual cases, a key factor that the developers also mentioned. So in essence, the game is pseudo-historical. 2601:14E:100:4298:DD56:D1D5:3284:1C1A (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is possible the game uses famous people of the time, like Mickey Cohen, they are used as part of a fictionalized story with fictional characters (i.e. Cole Phelps). And the cases are not based on actual cases but inspired by them, with some of the elements in them from real-life used to form some of the in-game cases. In short, I cannot agree if the game is pseudo-historical or not, but I definitely believe it to be mainly a game of fictional qualities in a 40's period setting. GUtt01 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is addition to my response above; I have checked, and it seems the Sub-article about the game, pertaining to the List of Characters for it, mentions that the Mickey Cohen in the game is a fictionalized version of the real-life Mickey Cohen. I expect any real-life characters are either mentioned in terms of the time period, or if involved in a case, are purely a fictionalized version for the game. GUtt01 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), 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. David J Johnson (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What source mentioned existentialism as one of the movie's themes? Dizzzer (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really now? Dizzzer (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article The Usual Suspects. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Additionally: He's Luke's father, "she" is a guy, Rosebud is a sled, he's been dead the whole time, etc. If you don't want to know what happens in a movie, don't read an encyclopedia entry about the movie. SummerPhD^v2.0 13:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was replace Verbal Kint with Keyser Soze. And well, sometimes people like to see the reception a movie gets, before watching it. That could ruin it for some, ya know? Dizzzer (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary indicates that this is one of the defining points of the movie. Leaving out the defining points of a topic would lead to articles on the Eiffel Tower not mentioning it's in Paris and bread not mentioning it's baked. Further, our article on Jesus ruins the whole resurrection bit for people who haven't read the story. Haven't gotten around to seeing the Wizard of Oz yet? Sorry, we don't protect that one either. In reality, anything but the vaguest possible description of a plot contains spoilers. How could we possibly write a plot summary (or say anything at all, really) for Cast Away without giving away that he gets on a plane that crashes and ends up stranded, alone?

This has been debated several times by the Wikipedia community. The strong consensus is outlined at WP:SPOILER. If you'd like to re-visit the issue with another community-wide discussion, I can tell you how to start it (and how it will end). - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not very friendly are you? I was referring to the RECEPTION of the movie, where it contains spoilers, not the PLOT section (which nearly everyone knows contains spoilers). For those who want to know what reception it got, without spoiling anything before they watch it, hence the edit. And no, nearly everybody knows about Jesus and the resurrection narrative. There are people in the world who have yet to see the movie though. The plot twist isn't until the very end, one that just about nobody suspects, one that puts the whole story in a different direction, while tying everything together. But fine, it's whatever. Dizzzer (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1998 in video gaming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spyro the Dragon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Dizzzer (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2001: A Space Odyssey, 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. David J Johnson (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the reason. 1999 had to be the year the movie picked up from the Dawn of Man scene. With 2001, the title, being the year the Odyssey actually occurred. Dizzzer (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is your view, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You still need a reliable source or your "edits" will continue to be reverted. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Moses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter why you reverted - being right wouldn't exempt you from the 3RR rule unless there is a genuine violation of WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you suggest to keep the subject neutral? Dizzzer (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Please stop adding your own unsourced opinion to articles, as you did here and here, and stop edit warring to keep your edits in the article. Incidentally, in both the edits I've linked, you also messed up the grammar of a previously coherent sentence (removing the verb in the first, using the non-existent locution "Scholarly consensus sees that there is no good evidence" in the second). Please edit more carefully. If you are reverted (as you have repeatedly been by several different users on Moses), use the article talkpage to explain your view of neutrality. You may be blocked from editing if you ignore this warning and/or the warning above. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps you didn't see my reply to you?

Hi, Dizzzer. You wrote a question on my page and I replied, but I see you have been continuing to edit just as if you haven't read my post. Perhaps you didn't look to see my response before I went on Wikibreak and blanked my page. You go on just as before, removing sourced content with your standard edit summary "let's keep it neutral", without any attempt to discuss, or to explain why you think your version is more neutral. I'm pasting our conversation below, with your own header, your question, and my response. Please read my reply from 1 June carefully. You risk being blocked if you persist in the same uncollaborative kind of editing after this, because now I've explained several times (compare the "final warning" above) that you need to use article talkpages to argue for your controversial edits. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Neutrality

On various subjects in pages about biblical figures and history, I am trying to keep the information neutral and more accurate (wikipedia is supposed to be 100% neural, is it not?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. Type four tildes, ~~~~, and they will convert automatically to your signature and timestamp when you save. I'm sorry, there's little point in coming to my page recommending "neutrality", as you have done so many times before, without explaining specifically what you mean by it — why the previous version isn't neutral and why yours is. Don't do it here, do it on the article talkpages. For instance Talk:Moses is the talkpage for Moses. As far as I can see you haven't used an article talkpage since 2012. Edit summaries don't have room for discussion; it's supposed to take place on talkpages. And here is a policy and an essay that you urgently need to read before you again edit the articles where you have a conflict: WP:NPOV and WP:BRD. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm trying to figure out how this thing works, your talk page or mine? And I mean neutral so the information wouldn't appear to be so one-sided (like saying this or that person didn't exist, and such. It'd be fair not to emphasize on such things. You know, keep it open). Dizzzer (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep our discussion (yours and mine) on your page. I don't want you to explain the concept of neutrality in the abstract, I want you to explain why your version, for instance here, is more neutral than what was there before, considering that there was a source for the material you removed. Explain it providing a source; Wikipedia isn't interested in your opinion or mine, but only in the opinion of reliable sources. And I don't want you to explain it to me, on your talkpage or mine, but to the article's editors in general, on the talkpage of the article you have edited. This is the talkpage of Daniel. When your edit here was reverted here, you should have gone to Talk:Daniel to discuss instead of trying another version directly in the article. I seem to be repeating myself a lot, it's getting a little tiring. Here's some more repetition: Edit summaries don't have room for discussion; it's supposed to take place on talkpages. Article talkpages. We don't seem to be making much progress. Have you read the Wikipedia pages I pointed you too, WP:NPOV and WP:BRD? Bishonen | talk 00:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

For instance, if it says that a certain figure didn't exist, for some people, it can take a stab at their beliefs (depending). Since there's no confirmation in favor or against the existence of said person, it's best to keep the stance neutral. Dizzzer (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly not understand when I tell you to discuss on the article page, not here? I'm done, I'm sick of repeating myself. And I'm sick of telling you to read WP:NPOV, which you very obviously have not. I'm clearly wasting my time trying to teach you how Wikipedia works. Don't edit disruptively or you will be blocked, that's all. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anchors Aweigh (film)

added a link pointing to Hail Caesar

Million Dollar Mermaid

added a link pointing to Hail Caesar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Hateful Eight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Zoroastrianism. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you see something in <ref>reference tags, like these</ref> that's a citation. If the citation is of a professionally published mainstream academic source, it is "proven" as far as Wikipedia's concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia works

Going over your edits, you clearly need these policies and guidelines more clearly explained:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

You've received plenty of final warnings about this. You need to shape up. I'm going to leave your contributions page open in a tab for a while.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If an academic source says that the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Messiah originated in Zoroastrianism, then it is not speculation. If you are not well studied on a topic and/or have strong feelings about it, you should probably stay away from it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'm well-studied thank you. I was curious as to see if there's something I forgot, but then I see a theory that's not factual. On Wikipedia, the reader expects objective info, and it has not in any way been proven to have directly influenced it, only speculated. The only thing we're sure of is that the Jews and Zoroastrians shared similar ideas, that's it. Scholarship is shoddy when it relies on speculation and/or conspiracy theories, no matter if the sources are "academic" (you do know there's plenty of stuff from academic sources that are off-base). Perhaps you should add "it is thought/assumed that [this & that]". Dizzzer (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now idk how to request an unblock, this things complicated.

Instructions for requesting an unblock were included in the block notice that you removed. I can be found here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dizzzer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dizzzer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I contributed to a lot on wikipedia whenever there was wrong and/or misguided information. Dizzzer (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked. You were blocked for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" Yamla (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Dizzzer (talk) I was blocked because of persistent addition of unsourced content. There, now why can't you unblock me? Dizzzer (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.