User talk:ProtectorOfWorldSaves

Evils, it is time for you to shit in your pants. I am here.

Did you know that this is an encyclopedia editable by almost anyone?

I can see you're having a religious debate at Wikipedia talk:No original research, against my advice. I'd like to know if you plan to edit articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as no one supports your religious assertions, I'm curious if you would take up copyediting or some such. We have tutorials to show you how. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"as no one supports your religious assertions"

1. How did you know about "no one" among 7 billion plus? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:No original research for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember having discussed any general unrelated topic. As far as I remember I did stick to the thread rationally. Kindly let me know, where did I go out of the context? Whatever is rationally needed to connect, towards making people of all type understand the situation, it is necessary. As and when related hurdles arrived, I did discuss the same. They are necessary. I guess you are mistaken. If not mistaken, kindly highlight. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Wikipedia talk:No original research. The talk page is not for general discussion of the topic. Make specific proposals about changing the actual page/policy itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Jayig's warning is based, I presume, on fact you're posting at talk page for the policy. There is a place where we discuss specific instances of the sort of thing you describe. That's the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. But for god's sake please don't just ramble about high falutin' vague principles. If you have a specific example you want to discuss, that's a good place to get help. But you have to help us help you by getting down into the tangible details of an example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

What is the precise violation that User:Jayjg is trying to point out? While original experience mattered, and while I pointed out guesses should be explicitly marked where-ever wiki-articles don't explicitly inform about guesses, which is a policy related remark, why should having this discussion at the concerned policy's talk page be a violation?

ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not going to let {{help me}} be used for a question so far removed from actually editing Wikipedia. Once you've picked your venue for general discussion, you need to either stick to it or drop the stick. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me! "tangible details"

"getting down into the tangible details" as per which policy on wikipedia only tangible examples must be addressed? Why wait for thirst to be felt in order to dig the well? While if a hypothetical problem which may in future get tangible is noticed, and while it may be tried by criminals around the world, why not address that in advance? Please see the comment above by User:NewsAndEventsGuy " But you have to help us help you by getting down into the tangible details of an example." ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

See above. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Building an encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Instead of seeking attention, please consider helping the community to build and improve this encyclopedia, by editing articles instead of inventing problems. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Instead of seeking attention" why is this remark here? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Consider it to be a warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

For what reason a warning with this "Instead of seeking attention" remark? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A case study for the press?

It often happens that a reporter, knowing little about Wikipedia, goes in and makes some edits and runs into various kinds of opposition from other, more experienced, editors. It takes more than a quick hit-and-run anecdote to learn enough about how Wikipedia works to write something useful as seen by the wider world. There are already enough mis-informed Wikipedia hit pieces. Please don't add to that particular rubbish heap.

Any time you think Wikipedia cares about "truth", you will run into trouble. The Wikipedia community is not so much concerned about learning the truth about any subject as it is in summarizing what reliable subjects say about that subject. Wikipedia has no mechanism for arbitrating what is "true". The community is content to report what is generally reported, noting contrary views when supported by other reliable sources, and not making any final judgments. The no original research policy means that if you have discovered a fact, you must convince a reliable source to publish that fact before it can be reported on here at Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

user:jmcgnh you wrote, 'Wikipedia has no mechanism for arbitrating what is "true".'. How did you know about that? ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a commonplace observation. See, for example, WP:TRUTH and Criticism of Wikipedia.

As for the broader behavioral issue that others have been complaining about, perhaps WP:SEALIONING? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly address the following points:-

1. "It's a commonplace observation." please elaborate. Do let me know if I am getting it wrong. You wrote 'Wikipedia has no mechanism for arbitrating what is "true"'. So, may I consider you do not know how to arrive at the truth? While if I am correct at considering, you do not know how to arrive at truth, how did you realize, the commonplace observation of yours is correct?
2. "behavioral issue" what exactly have you noticed as a behavioral issue?
3. "complaining about" please question them to find if they have valid reasons to complain. Do let me know what exactly was the issue from me. If correct, I will definitely work on it. ProtectorOfWorldSaves (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly don't. Start contributing to actual articles or their talk pages about actual issues that need to be fixed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

[redacted] Benjamin (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 09:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

List of alleged sockpuppets:

User_talk:Talktomemind