User talk:J20160628

Welcome!

Hello, J20160628, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Talk pages are for the discussion of actionable proposals to improve articles. Please do not add commentary, particularly about living people as done at Talk:Deepa Kumar. Your comment says a "criticism section must be added", which is reasonable for a talk page, although at variance with WP:CRIT. However, adding "many statements ... have been quite well refuted" with no context and no references is just a personal opinion—it is commentary on the subject. Continuing "Her arguments are too often emotional but ill substantiated" shows the nature of the commentary—it's just an unsourced attack from someone on the internet. Such text would need significant reliable sources and would have to be given as an attributed opinion ("According to X in publication Y, her arguments are too often emotional").

WP:BLP is a strong policy that requires that article edits and talk page comments treat subjects neutrally and according to references. I have again removed your comment. Please do not restore it. If wanted, click "new section" at the top of the article talk page and add a new section with reliable sources, being careful to not express a personal opinion on the subject. Personal opinions on the veracity of a source or whether material is WP:DUE are fine, but Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions about subjects, and particularly not about living people. See WP:TP and WP:TPG for general talk-page procedures, including how to add a signature. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do take a note to that The section that Deepa Kumar article is self promotional was not initiated by me. I merely supported this view with a specific example

The same holds for your comment on Talk:The God Delusion. You are making a biographical assertion about a living person that requires the corroboration of at least one reliable source. Absent that source, your comment is just, as noted above, a random unsourced attack, and it will continue to be deleted. Barte (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do take a note to that the section that Deepa Kumar article is self promotional was not initiated by me. I merely supported this view with a specific referenced example on beating women in Islam, which Barte was quick to remove from the talk page as would any Islamic apologist do. As for the source on the homosexual inclinations, I thought that the source was provided by the author himself. Please notice, as well, that I am not accusing the author of performing any particular acts and I have not claimed anything which was not made publically known. Furthermore, the author was said to be delusional and confused in other titles of papers not written by me, which must be openly discussed rather than removed or ignored.Highness 10:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for other views at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Deepa Kumar. Please see WP:TP to learn how to add a signature, as mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Johnuniq's note on BLP and I agree with him. Your edit summary is pretty incivil, and your posts make it look like you have an axe to grind, both not okay on Wikipedia. Johnuniq is also correct that anytime anything is added into Wikpedia about a living person, anywhere, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. KoshVorlon 17:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Pendulum

This is not the first time there has been an edit war to restore the so-called 'exact' formula at Pendulum. If it continues, admins may decide to issue one or more blocks. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you.

If you want to continue the war, you should keep in mind some of the past events:

Past discussion at Talk:Pendulum#Which formula for the true period should be used?
Edit warring case involving the same issue in 2012: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive197#User:193.233.212.18 reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: 48h)
Sockpuppet case where someone was using multiple accounts to promote the arithmetic-geometric formula: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78/Archive
Newly-created account that got blocked in 2012 for warring about the formula: User talk:Syrmath#Block evasion

Admins do not find it enjoyable when the same edit war restarts multiple times, in a case where the new proponent does not wait to persuade others on the talk page that (this time around) their change is correct. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston: Please consider my answer to C.Fred, who seems to side against reasoning with muslim apologists. I did look carefully into your past contribution to the pendulum, and I can tell that science does not seem to be your strong side. So your contributions to wikipedia are largely negative. Just like C.Fred, promoting Deepa Kumar, you have sided with "muslims" and shamefully blocked most competent pendulum editors based on strangely fabricated allegations. One must agree with SupremeFormula that you dared doing that only because your identity is concealed under various wikipedia accounts, violating the rules which you advertise to others. So before advising me, take care of your own actions which speak louder than words. I despise the Saudi royal family along with the organizer of the 9.11 attack Turki bin Faisal Al Saud and dare you to remove this remark from this talk page. Also keep in mind that I also despise low lives lecturing others on what to do. Never address me on wikipedia again, else I leave it forever to you, C.Fred and Deepa Kumar. Unlike you I have many more better things to do.Highness 16:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@J20160628: Your first contribution to Wikipedia was on June 30th. So in less than a month, you have fought with several editors, attacking some personally while ascribing political motivation for simple requests for WP:V and WP:NPOV. You have confused an encyclopedia with a forum, and, curiously, you persist in substituting a fictitious signature for your actual one. Just noting. Barte (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Pendulum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the pendulum, I wonder why did C.Fred remove my reference on beating wives on the talk page of Deepa Kumar. Also, tell me why would someone object to the term muslim apologist? Is wikipedia sponsored by the Saudi government? Do let me know, so I leave all the editing to you. Highness 15:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Because, without a solid reliable source to back it up, it's a violation of WP:BLP—even if it's only on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you removed the reliable source which I provided. Thus, you seem to keep on missing my point. Please go back to your own edit and look again to see the source which I provided and you deleted.Highness 16:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Per http://www.answering-islam.org/policy.html, I have severe doubts as to whether that site is reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind that you express your doubts on Deepa Kumar talk page rather than concealing the source from others. Incidentally speaking, it is an extensive site with much more significant argumentation that any that Deepa Kumar ever provided. So if you do not like the site, then you simply do not like to reason and talk, just as I suspected. You seem to hide behind rules to justify deletions and denials, so the time has come to tell me whether the Saudi royal family sponsors the wikipedia, or you feel personally and strongly that you must side with muslim apologists. Answer me directly or better explain your biased position.Highness 17:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be based on independent, secondary sources: not statements by Kumar and not opinion pieces by somebody with an agenda. As for your questions, I don't have access to financial data, so I can't tell you whether they've made any contribution to WMF, and I don't side with one side or the other in these issues. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of FeelUs (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]