User talk:DiamondComodo
Welcome
[edit]Hi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Some other site policies and guidelines you may find useful
[edit]- "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
- 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. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.
Reformulated:
- "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- We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.
- A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- 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.
- Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
- 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.
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.
Happy Editing! OgamD218 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ I'm not saying that you do, but if...
March 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to PragerU, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at January 6 United States Capitol attack. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DiamondComodo WP:NOTHERE. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
DiamondComodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was being very asinine and I understand that I was vandalizing pages. I understand if my block stays in place, however, I am genuinely interested in editing Wikipedia pages and volunteering at the Task Center so I can help edit what needs to be done. I am sorry for my actions and I will not do it again. DiamondComodo (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not sufficiently address the concerns. What about your pushing of right-wing POV and nonsense conspiracy theories? Yamla (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
DiamondComodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My apologies for not addressing the specific concerns. I understand that Wikipedia is a website of fact, and theories are not factual as they are just conspiracies. I do believe, however, that some Wikipedia articles are unfairly biased against the American Right Wing, and I will be sure to edit pages backed up by an unbiased source. I am specifically looking to help in the Task Center. I understand if I will continue to be banned, but I hope you will consider unbanning me. I understand what I did is in violation of Wikipedias edit policy. DiamondComodo (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted below, there likely is not a pathway forward here unless you agree to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed(meaning if a potential edit has anything at all to do with post-1992 American politics, you can't make the edit). You could appeal the ban after a time(say 6 months or 500 edits whichever is longer). If you agree to this, we will need to know what topics you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
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.
I would likely edit other topics such as Aviation because I have been interested in that since I knew it existed, literally. I likely would also edit Military pages as I also know a lot about that. I would also likely write about non-political US topics such as culture and language. I would also like to help out with other topics in the Task Center.
DiamondComodo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As a previous admin stated, I could get unbanned if I agree to have a topic ban for an indefinite amount of time or until I've shown that I can make good edits to pages. I would likely edit other topics such as Aviation because I have been interested in that since I knew it existed, literally. I likely would also edit Military pages as I also know a lot about that. I would also likely write about non-political US topics such as culture and language. I would also like to help out with other topics in the Task Center. DiamondComodo (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The pathway forward for you would be this: You appear to have accepted the topic ban on all post-1992 American politics, which is good. However, I will say you need to take out standard offer which is you do not edit Wikipedia in any fashion for 6 months. No logged out editing, no socking, no unblock requests. Come back to request your unblock NO SOONER than September 29, 2023 (6 months from your request), and we will consider it then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
- Do not post more one unblock request at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bbb23 This has been open a month so I would like to close it one way or the other, what do you think? 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- @331dot: I think what you said on March 29 when you declined their unblock request was/is reasonable: the user should wait six months before we consider unblocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)