User talk:Par âpre aux astres

March 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Roland Omnès, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:OVERLINK. CodeTalker (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nigger, 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. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Rape Island, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Frankly, addition of redirects like this calls into question whether you are editing in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please remove the redirect "Pedophile Island" so that I can believe in your sincerity and that you have no personal problem with me. Thank you. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Suicide of Kurt Cobain, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept such blame. I moved the article about Cobain's death to make its name in accordance with those of Hitler, Epstein and Cleopatra. They are all labeled as "death" rather than suicide. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted or not, per WP:RMUM, you must seek and gain consensus prior to any move of any article where the page's title has been previously discussed and/or is long-established, as is the case at Suicide of Kurt Cobain. And what are you up to here? General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I followed the precedent thus that I have no blame but you're continuing to assume bad faith. You reminded what you were supposed to remind. I'm not saying I didn't took your warning, I'm saying that my intention was not to be distruptive. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything; I'm informing you of our policies. It is entirely possible to be disruptive without the intention to do so. May I suggest that you move beyond the question of blame (which is not what this is about) and take some time to read them? General Ization ^Talk 21:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zeki Kuneralp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Johnson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do disclaimers

Regarding this edit of yours: Your edit summary is incorrect. It is not needed, not in the FAQ, and especially not on the whole site. The wording, particularly the improper use of "respect" and the claim about what Wikipedia "believes", is highly inappropriate. We have a content guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers, that is why there are no disclaimers on any page except at the bottom. Wikipedia already has Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. That is sufficient. Your edits in the FAQ are becoming disruptive; please stop. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah whatever. Let me translate what you're saying: If you were to add a disclaimer like I did, Muslims would approach cautiously. That Wikipedia does not want, I spent here long enough time to understand that. And yes, Wikipedia is a non-Muslim site, it was founded by an atheist guy^[1] who shaped this site in a materialistic and secularist point of view. Usage of the word "neutral" in this wiki is just some kind of a euphemism for that. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "translation" of what I said is way off. I never said any such thing.

Every reputable encyclopedia on the planet is secular. So is Wikipedia. Regardless of who founded it. I encourage you to read WP:NPOV because you clearly misunderstand what "neutral" means in the context of Wikipedia. If you prefer an encyclopedia that caters to religious bias and ideology, then Conservapedia is → that way. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you who misunderstand me. As a religious person, that I want you to know for the sake of argument, I don't want Wikipedia to "cater to religious bias and ideology" but I rather I just want it to NOT cater to irreligious bias and ideology. Secularism is the view that God doesn't matter, that religion should be thought of as a children's game and therefore that it should not be taken seriously. Secularism looks down on religion arrogantly. The biggest flaw in this case is that secularism fervently defends the point that religion cannot be neither scientifically proven nor disproven, yet it acts as if religion is universally false. Let's look at you sir: You praise irreligiosity, and I praise religiosity, but somehow the neutral stance is that of irreligious. Who said so? Ah yes, another irreligious guy. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to get into a debate about religious ideology or secularism, especially with someone who puts words in my mouth, insisting I said things I never said. Don't presume to know the religious background of other editors. You don't.

An encyclopedia cannot take sides when it comes to religion or ideology. Unfortunately, you seem to be assuming that an absence of religious bias or ideology is equivalent to advocacy of an anti-religious viewpoint. No, that isn't the same thing. Again, you don't seem to understand what neutrality means. Did you even read WP:NPOV?

The edit you attempted to make implied that Wikipedia has no "respect" for Islam and doesn't "believe" certain religious views. It is impossible for an encyclopedia to engage in emotions like that, and the stridency in such a statement is highly inappropriate. The fact is that Wikipedia neither promotes nor disrespects Islam or any other religion, and does not promote atheism either. Wikipedia simply aims to provide information in a dispassionate neutral manner. Your edit did not do that; rather, it amounted to editorializing, stating your own personal opinion about Wikipedia. It is enough to say Wikipedia is a secular project. That doesn't mean it's "anti" Islam.

An essay about Wikipedia's biases is here: User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. I would add to it "we are biased toward scholarly secular sources, and not toward any source that promotes a religious viewpoint." ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being biased towards scholarly secular sources is not neutrality. You might say "it is ok as long as we make edits in a neutral tone" but no. "Being biased towards scholarly secular sources" is a thought. It's an ideology. By that definition, Newton is unscientific. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be neutral, it's near impossible, but it could try to be. But if Wikipedians cumulatively think that God should not be taken seriously, they should put this tenet in the front page. Maybe like, changing its name from Wikipedia to "There-is-no-God-and-if-there-He-is-He-should-not-be-taken-seriously-because-we-worship-scientists-and-treat-their-works-as-holy-scriptures-o-pedia" or something? Par âpre aux astres (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making an error by presuming to know the minds of other editors. Your beliefs about Wikipedia are grounded in falsehoods, such as editors "think God should not be taken seriously" or that the underlying bias is "There is no God... etc.". Do you want to know what Wikipedia is based on? Read Wikipedia:Five pillars, although I doubt you will, as I doubt you have read the neutrality policy as I suggested.

You also don't seem to know what "secular" means in any of this discussion. We have a lengthy article on it; see secularity. It simply means being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion. It doesn't mean anti-God or anti-religious, much as you seem to desire that to be the meaning. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read them both already, on multiple occasions, before we started this argument. Anyway Mr. Secularism, I have a life outside to live, if you don't mind. This doesn't go anywhere anyway. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

^ "Jimmy Wales". Big Think. Big Think Media. August 10, 2007. Archived from the original on November 11, 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017. I'm a complete non-believer.

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 18:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Par âpre aux astres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You should have assumed good faith regarding my actions. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and only difference between me and others you deem to actually be here to build an encyclopedia is my opinions. All I tried to do was to civilly discuss intending to establish a different consensus on a policy that was open to negotiation according to wiki policies. Apart from that, I do not made anything with intent to vandalise, but if I did make an edit that was deemed harmful and disruptive, I would kindly request you to show me the relevant policy, so that I will try my best to avoid such edits. Thanks. Par âpre aux astres (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Nofag. Clearly there's no good faith on your part here. Yamla (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2024 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Jimmy Wales". Big Think. Big Think Media. August 10, 2007. Archived from the original on November 11, 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017. I'm a complete non-believer.

[1]