Jump to content

User talk:A19470822

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zanimum was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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.
Zanimum (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, A19470822! 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! Zanimum (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:A19470822/sandbox

[edit]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:A19470822/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SpencerT•C 02:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, A19470822, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello A19470822, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Jewish Christian have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to search I am new to Wikipedia editing. It is quite overwhelming...Learning the Wikipedia ways has been bumpy. My apologies to the veterans. I am retired and have discretionary time to devote to this endeavor. I have been a reader and student of early civilizations, Roman Empire and comparative religion for many years. I am looking for articles within my areas of interest that need substantial improvement in terms of editing and scholarship. I will make sure that my contributions are substantiated by references of the latest research. I welcome any suggestions and guidance you may extend :A19470822 ([[User talk::A19470822|talk]])

Introduction and apology

[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia editing. It is quite overwhelming and humbling... I am retired and have discretionary time to devote to this endeavour. I have been a reader and student of early civilizations, Roman Empire and comparative religion for many years. I am looking for articles within my areas of interest that need improvement in terms of editing and scholarship. I will make sure that my contributions are substantiated by references of leading scholars. :A19470822 ([[User talk::A19470822|talk]])

No apology is needed, but I think you really do learn to discover what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia. Leave me a message by all means. Achar Sva (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Books

[edit]

– you have been adding lists of books as inline citations across several articles – inline citations should directly support the content referenced (see Wikipedia:Inline citation) – list of books belong in the article's Further Reading section – to add books to the Further Reading section (or in an inline citation) a complete description of the work is needed: author name, title, publisher, location, date, ISBN, etc. – see Wikipedia:Citing sources – there are several articles and tutorials on Wikipedia if you need help learning how to edit constructively – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– p.s. – if you need help learning to edit I would be happy to provide what advice I can – another resource for new editors is The Teahouse – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

[edit]

Hi A1! Some tips:

  • Start with little pieces of info; one sentence would suffice in the beginning
  • Use the best sources: University Press etc.
  • Make sure that you summarize and paraphrase the sources correctly

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance II

[edit]

Hello. I had to revert your additions to a few articles. They were simply books added to the bibliography. The bibliography is for books USED in the article, because if we simply kept adding books there would be no end. The correct way to edit is to add something to the article - or possibly delete something, or replace something, or change the wording. Please feel free to contact me, or any other experienced editor if you want some guidance. Achar Sva (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Jewish Christian, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Epinoia (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jewish Christian. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Epinoia (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following Guidelines

[edit]

– when contributing to an article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines – your recent edit to Epistle to the Hebrews did not follow the guidelines for citing sources - please read WP:CITE, WP:ILC for proper citation format – adding citations means adding a complete description of the work including author, title, publisher, location, date, page number, ISBN. etc. – you have been advised of this several times in the past and continue to ignore the guidelines – please follow the guidelines in any future edits – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– perhaps we could help you more if you could explain why you are not following the guidelines – if we know what the issue is we can deal with it more effectively – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Gospel of Mark

[edit]

– I reverted your edit to Gospel of Mark – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the content should be encyclopedic – your edit contained conjectural wording such as, "It would appear", "mission to the Gentiles appears", "must have realized" and draws conclusions, "Thus..." – article content must reflect what the sources say, not present conjecture or arguments – see WP:TONE, WP:WIKIVOICE. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT – just because someone has written it in a book or journal does not make it appropriate content for Wikipedia – Wikipedia is based on mainstream scholarship WP:MAINSTREAM, see WP:WEIGHT, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" – and you seem to still have some difficulty with citations, adding editorial comments to citations such as, "somewhat consonant views in", is not proper citation format – Epinoia (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– I removed all the speculation, conjecture and argument from your edit and reinstated it in the article, with corrected citations – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. – Epinoia (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Stupid of me I guess, but I could not figure it out. :-( With your explanation I hope I got it. --A19470822 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

[edit]

Hello, A19470822, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Pepepepez1963 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A19470822, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Rosarosa1955 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu, thank you for your welcome. Cograts on pepepepez1963. We are acquainted from a facebook religion group and often chat on subjects of common interest. I am not aware who rorarosa may be. --A19470822 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
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).

A19470822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reasoning behind this sanction and I will avoid any action that may violate Wikipedia guidelines. I am a retiree looking for something productive to do. My contributions aim to improve the scholarship of articles in my area of interest (comparative religious studies). I am OK whether you reinstate my editing privileges or not, although I would prefer you do. Regardless of your decision, it is important that Wikipedia management become aware that too many of the articles I have read stand on poor or outdated scholarship, have inadequate tables of content (inadequate presentation of the issues) and are poorly edited. My suggestion: get an assessment of the situation from a qualified scholar. Keep up the good work.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (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.

@Callanecc: --A19470822 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (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).

A19470822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand That I have been blocked for sock puppetry . I have notified all members of the editing group I created, that we must cease and desist. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption. I will make useful contributions.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately the evidence suggests a much closer connection than someone with whom you are "acquainted from a facebook religion group" and an unspecified "editing group". You also haven't said what it is from which you and your group will "cease and desist", making it difficult to assess whether ceasing and desisting from whatever it is will be good enough. JBW (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2020 (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.

@Callanecc: @Yamla: --A19470822 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2020 (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).

A19470822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sometime in June I searched some item on google and clicked on Wikipedia. I was surprised at the poor quality of the article. As I looked around, I realized that I could contribute as an editor and decided to try it out. I thought that this could be an activity that could be of interest to fellow retirees. Within a few weeks I had a group of 6-7 acquaintances who joined-in. I introduced them to what I knew of Wikipedia editing, worked with them online on their first few contributions, introduced them to a few online sources I was acquainted with, and shared with them my small database of references. I did not expect that this would become an issue. I now understand that this activity is why I have been blocked for ¨sock puppetry¨ . I have notified all members of the editing group I created, that we will cease to cooperate and desist from acting as a coordinated group. I will not cause damage or disruption. If allowed, I will continue to make useful contributions.

Decline reason:

I don't buy it. The accounts look  Technically indistinguishable Salvio 10:10, 16 August 2020 (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.

@Callanecc: @Yamla:{{ping|JBW} --A19470822 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging people. Additionally, the established connection is far closer than "acquaintances". --Yamla (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A19470822&oldid=973277944"