User talk:Raymond648

November 2019

The Good Mans Words

Hi,

I'm definitely not a satanist, but I care about an encyclopedic neutral point of view. In Wikipedia articles, sentences such as "This was in fact a very immoral move that the British government had made." are unacceptably subjective regarding any "move"; describing the opinion as "fact" is incorrect.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Are you a moderator or a robot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond648 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a human Wikipedia editor; click my name for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Okay, did you read my message on your talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond648 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen and answered both questions now; feel free to ask if further questions about editing Wikipedia arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Raymond648. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"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We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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 mainstream 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.

Also, not a policy, but don't alter quoted material to something besides the original quote. Quotes contain the exact wording, that's how they work. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original quote. You were literally censoring scripture. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit you made to God in Christianity. Wikipedia is Not censored, information should not be removed simply because it is contradictory with some religious beliefs. dmartin969 02:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insults by Dmartin969

Hello, I'm Dmartin969. Your recent edit(s) to the page United Nations Operation in Somalia I appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. dmartin969 02:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at God in Christianity. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your reply is very generous and appreciative.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Canada and the United Nations. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. dmartin969 23:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Are you stalking me?

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Dmartin969 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. dmartin969 23:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hi Raymond648,

your last actions, combined with the bumpy start, seem to indicate that you are currently not here to build or maintain a neutral encyclopedia.

While I personally won't take administrative action against you, your behavior seems to justify a stern, and possibly final warning for trolling the community. It may be appropriate for any uninvolved administrator to block you from editing the next time you make an edit like one of the following:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated towards billions of potential readers, and at least millions of actual readers. Your edits behind the scenes may be mildly annoying, but intentionally disrupting live articles crosses a red line. If the community has to fear more similar edits coming from you, it has (and will use) effective technical measures to prevent them.

I have tried to guide you, but every human's patience is limited. If you seriously have good intentions and would like to accept this "possibly last chance" offer, you may like to have a look at The Wikipedia Adventure or the Task Center for constructive recommendations.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Secret Conflict (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks any sources or references.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Raymond648/sandbox/The Secret Conflict and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Raymond648/sandbox/The Secret Conflict, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymond648! Having an article 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! Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]