User talk:Pediainsight

Welcome!

Hello, Pediainsight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Scouter Sig 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Cycling. The article history didn't reveal the single space character you added: a summary is particularly important when the edit is "invisible". Thank you. --Danorton (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses project

I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Comments regarding template and project. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Prayer do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Suicide. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Hallo

I've seen you've placed repeatedly a blurred image of an unidentified species of sea star [1] [http://wiki.riteme.site)

I have removed the blurred image from sea star after you put it back again. Please don't put it back without discussing it at Talk:sea star first. William Avery (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you insist on showing us your image again [2]. The purpose of English Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopaedia in English, not to provide you space for uninformative images, even if you consider them beautiful. We have many images of chess pieces on their boar

behavioural evidence to pass the duck test. If this happens again I will file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. William Avery (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same IP range. William Avery (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ease understand that I often place images (mine and others') on articles to improve 'em. Sometimes they're photos I've taken

Sea star

As already explained above by User:Javierme, the caption says the photo is of a madreporite, which must be covered by an article on sea stars. Do not remove this illustration of the madreporite unless you can find a better one. William Avery (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governing Body members

You have restored pages about a few JW Governing Body members who have little encyclopedic notability. These people have not significantly impacted the teachings of JWs, and the information in their articles is lifted out of JW life-story articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. If you want to retain those articles, please indicate how where those individuals are discussed in reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bicycle do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain specifically what are those points. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this please stop adding any links from the Watchtower's website to unrelated articles. They are not considered a reliable source on any subject but themselves. Please review WP:RS for more information. Monotonehell 12:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say you're wrong. --Pediainsight (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bicycle do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Child sexual abuse, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content August 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses, you may be blocked from editing. BlackCab (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Masturbation, you may be blocked from editing. Your opinion of what "god's word" says does not belong in this encyclopedia, no matter how many others you may think might share your opinion. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is plainly a direct lift of material from the November 1, 2011 Watchtower magazine, which is prohibited under Wikipedia policies. BlackCab (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in, in a more general manner. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide religious context or instruction on any given topic. Unless the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are directly relevant to the topic of masturbation on the whole, it doesn't belong in the article, even if the church has teachings directly pertaining to it. The article subject is relevant to the church, but the church isn't relevant to the subject. See how that works? --King Öomie 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

In October 2009 you inserted unreliably sourced material into Pizza and violated the copyright of Watchtower here. Suicide here. Copyright violation is not on. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

This is your only warning; if you make controversial edits Wikipedia again, as you did at Homeopathy, without prior discussion on the talk page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note, The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing that page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Joja lozzo 22:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Homeopathy seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. McSly (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:McSly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NOTE: Try to keep things simple and stop when you are told to, yeah? Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show me again the politics about to talk on user's pages. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Israel, you may be blocked from editing. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the persecution and for the block

Thanks for the persecution and for the block. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

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).

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

Request reason:

i am innocent, I am not working in a disruptive manner, please, consider the unblock, two weeks is excesive, abusive. The edition was right. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your history of edit warring, 2 weeks is not excessive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 15 June 2014 (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.

Citations

I've noticed that a number of quotes you've provided in articles are lifted from Watch Tower Society literature, but only cited as the source quoted by Watch Tower (and sometimes with no citation at all). (Not only is the entire quote found verbatim in Watch Tower publications, but even the way you introduce these quotes is lifted from the JW literature.) That is not the correct way to cite things. If the place that you found the quote is not the original work, you should be citing it with "as quoted in [your source]". Also, please don't add sections that only contain a quote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These contents are from The World Book Encyclopedia, if you believe are not the right source or is wrong, plase prove it. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not enter content that is primarily a quote from other sources. Such content rarely improves on what is there already. It's much better to restate ideas in our own words. See these guidelines on the overuse of quotations. Joja lozzo 00:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedianinsight, we both know you are quoting from Watch Tower Society publications. This is why you are not providing any page numbers from the World Book Encyclopedia, because the Watch Tower Publication you are quoting doesn't provide them. In addition, I also stated that providing such quotes on their own is of no benefit, as also indicated by Jojalozzo.

For example, your edit at hypnosis [3] says:

The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology explains about hypnosis: “Its history is inextricably interwoven with occultism.” This encyclopedia notes: “Even today much hypnotic phenomena is classed as ‘Spiritualist.’”

Awake!, 8 July 2003, page 27, says:

the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology explains: “Its history is inextricably interwoven with occultism.” ... The above-quoted encyclopedia notes: “Even today much hypnotic phenomena is classed as ‘Spiritualist.’”

You've even kept the same unicode quote characters.

Another example... your edit at State (polity)[4] says:

The World Book Encyclopedia notes: “Religion touches the deepest feelings of many people, ... Some governments have close ties to one religion and consider people of other faiths to be a threat to political authority. A government also may regard religion as politically dangerous because religions may place allegiance to God above obedience to the state.”

The Watchtower, 1 February 1997, pages 3-4 says:

“Religion touches the deepest feelings of many people,” notes The World Book Encyclopedia. “Some governments have close ties to one religion and consider people of other faiths to be a threat to political authority. A government also may regard religion as politically dangerous because religions may place allegiance to God above obedience to the state.”

The red text indicates where you rearranged the text, and you didn't know whether the encyclopedia continues straight on to the next statement, so you replaced the moved citation with an ellipsis.

Yet another example... your edit at Mikhail Gorbachev [5] says:

In December 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev met with Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. The Soviet newspaper Pravda reported Gorbachev as saying about this dialogue: “We had a deep and meaningful talk. . . . We spoke about religion and relevant processes underway in Europe, the world, and the Soviet Union.” L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, reported that Mr. Gorbachev said in his speech to the pope: “People of many confessions, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others, live in the Soviet Union. All of them have a right to satisfy their spiritual needs. Shortly, the Law on the Freedom of Conscience will be adopted in our country.”

True to that word, in September 1990 the Soviet legislature approved a law allowing freedom of conscience. Article 3 of the law as drafted states: “In harmony with the right to freedom of conscience, every citizen decides for himself his relationship to religion, has the right to practice any religion individually or together with others or to practice none, to express and spread convictions relative to his relationship to religion.”

Awake!, 8 January 1992, pages 11-12 says:

In December 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev met with Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. The Soviet newspaper Pravda reported Gorbachev as saying about this dialogue: “We had a deep and meaningful talk. . . . We spoke about religion and relevant processes underway in Europe, the world, and the Soviet Union.” L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, reported that Mr. Gorbachev said in his speech to the pope: “People of many confessions, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others, live in the Soviet Union. All of them have a right to satisfy their spiritual needs. Shortly, the Law on the Freedom of Conscience will be adopted in our country.”

True to that word, in September 1990 the Soviet legislature approved a law allowing freedom of conscience. Article 3 of the law as drafted states: “In harmony with the right to freedom of conscience, every citizen decides for himself his relationship to religion, has the right to practice any religion individually or together with others or to practice none, to express and spread convictions relative to his relationship to religion.”

Are you really going to lie and say you just happened to coincidentally copy the exact same quote that you thought was pertinent? Of course, if you're really getting them from the World Book Encyclopedia, you'll be able to provide page numbers in your citations in future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, these contents are corroborable, true, serious, and genuine. --Pediainsight (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of whether the material is true. You need to properly cite what you are adding. Even with the best intentions, you cannot guarantee that what you see in a publication that quotes another publication actually quoted the original source accurately. If your source for something is from a different publication, you must cite it "as quoted in" the source you used (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). And if you add entire paragraphs from an uncited source (as you did at Michael Gorbachev), it will be immediately removed as a copyright violation. (However, note that it is unacceptable to provide entire paragraphs of unquoted text in that manner even if you provide a citation.)

Additionally, Watch Tower Society publications are not a reliable source for anything other than articles directly related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Further, as you have been told repeatedly, you should not add isolated quotes with no context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is this encyclopedia, i do not say to you if i took this information from Watchtower publications. Go to The World Book Encyclopedia and you will see the content. --Pediainsight (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cite your edits properly. If you don't, the material will be removed. And when you say 'go to The World Book Eneyclopedia', what do you mean? Do people have to read the entire two dozen or so volumes to find the bit you're quoting? If you are directly citing that work (you're not), provide page numbers (and/or a direct URL to the specific article if a web edition) so people can verify the source. Otherwise, I'll provide the citations from the Watch Tower Society literature you're citing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit to Homeopathy... it, including the text introducing the quote, was lifted from Awake!, 22 October 2000, page 9, but you failed to properly cite it as such. Aside from that, the JAMA article was only talking about the popularity of homeopathy, and the JAMA article actually also states, "most insurance companies do not reimburse for alternative medical practices, because they lack sufficient scientific proof of efficacy". It therefore is not suitable as a source endorsing effectiveness of homeopathy, and it also isn't suitable in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying content from other sources

Please hear this advice: Contributions that are primarily quotations are inappropriate and rarely improve the project. There are many ways to contribute and different roles for people with different skills. Those who find it difficult to articulate concepts and facts in their own words can significantly advance the project by correcting errors or adding (public domain) images rather than contributing new textual content. Please consider working with us in some way other than copying text from other sources. Thank you. Joja lozzo 01:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is right or not to take a phrase from other encyclopedia and then, introduce it here, in wikipedia? --Pediainsight (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to go back and read Wikipedia:Your first article and then take a close look at Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Those two pages spell out the problem with just lifting copy from somewhere and inserting it in an article. It notes: "Always write the articles in your own words ... as a general rule, do not copy and paste text from other sources." The examples cited by Jeffro in the thread above highlight your egregious use of copy-pasting. BlackCab (TALK) 08:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Michael Gorbachev (indicated in previous section) is entirely inappropriate. But apart from that—and aside from your improper citation of material as indicated in the previous section—simply quoting an encyclopedia with no supporting prose generally amounts to a useless soundbite with no real context, and does nothing to improve the article. Relevant quotes may be used to support other material in an article, but are not a substitute for proper content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is inappropriate and unhelpful. If you persist in making unhelpful contributions rather than helpful ones such as correcting grammatical mistakes or spelling errors, you may eventually be blocked from editing. Joja lozzo 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to plagiarise sources, most recently at Homeopathy. You have already been warned repeatedly about this. If you do it again, you will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reify-tech (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the source, this is the source:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2498272/technology-law-regulation/mit-researchers-can-see-through-walls-using--wi-vi-.html

It's an isolated technical article. If we linked every innovation that MIT came up with, the links section would dominate the article. Wi-Vi isn't sufficiently notable at this time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower

I've undone you edits because some of the material does not belong where you put it, and the bit from The Watchtower is both laughably simplistic and also from a source that cannot be taken seriously on an engineering matter. You are close to edit warring on this: please desist.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is serious and you know it. Please return the edition to the article or introduce the content in other part of the article. In what part do you think can be the information? --Pediainsight (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been advised previously that publications of the Watch Tower Society—religious publications—do not qualify as reliable sources for general-interest subjects. Additionally, the only element of your edits at Eiffel Tower that was not already present in the article was The Watchtower's assertion that construction was based on a thighbone, with no credible source for the claim. Also, you're continuing to add single disjunct statements instead of creating or improving valid prose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are right, the sources are serious for articles about religious matters or other matters. This sources do not like to some atheistic people or disfelloshiped people from the JW organization, but other people, a lot of people, who really are not JW members or JW people, likes this sort of sources or these sort of sources. Wikipedia and its politics do no explain this sources are wrong, because they know are right. --Pediainsight (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The femur is principally compression member, with tension loads taken by the musculature. The ironwork of the Eiffel Tower is loaded in both compression and tension. Don't make edits other than grammatical ones in areas of which you are ignorant.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If you only wish to provide content from literature published by the Watch Tower Society, you should restrict your edits to articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you want to contribute to other articles, you need to provide sources that are suitable to those articles. When doing so, you should provide (or improve) prose, not just standalone 'snippets' of information without any context. Of course, there is also always a need for improving articles by fixing errors, copyediting and so forth without the need to introduce new material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are right, the sources are serious for articles about religious matters or other matters. This sources do not like to some atheistic people or disfelloshiped people from the JW organization, but other people, a lot of people, who really are not JW members or JW people, likes this sort of sources or these sort of sources. Wikipedia and its politics do no explain this sources are wrong, because they know are right. --Pediainsight (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the same thing twice doesn't make it true, and whether 'some people' are 'atheistic' or otherwise is irrelevant. The publications do not meet the criteria for reliable sources for subjects other than the beliefs and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm aware that several other editors have removed your edits from various articles, so your claim that other people regard these sources as suitable for general-interest topics is also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is an illustrated religious magazine, published semimonthly in 228 languages[1] by Jehovah's Witnesses via the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and printed in various branch offices around the world. Along with its companion magazine, Awake!, Jehovah's Witnesses distribute The Watchtower—Public Edition in their door-to-door ministry.[2][3] The Watchtower—Public Edition is the most widely circulated magazine in the world, with an average print run of nearly 53,000,000 copies per month;[4][5] The Watchtower—Study Edition is used at congregation meetings, with an average monthly print run of nearly 15,000,000.[6]

Please, read this:

http://archives.jrn.columbia.edu/2010/nyrm.org/2010/05/13/the-most-widely-read-magazine-in-the-world/index.html

The wide circulation of a religious magazine does not change the fact that it is a religious magazine, and does not constitute a reliable source for subjects not related to that religion. Essentially, you are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Of course, the number of copies printed also does not necessarily indicate the number of readers, and many Witnesses often have stacks of old unused magazines.

Your chosen source calls them "flimsy, pamphlet-like 31-page monthlies" (though with the exception of the Study edition of The Watchtower, they are now a flimsier 16-pages). It says The Watchtower is "a doctrinal guide to Witness beliefs". As such, your chosen source automatically disqualifies The Watchtower as a reliable source for subjects other than Jehovah's Witnesses. Awake! is similarly described as "an attempt at a general interest magazine ... with a Witness twist". Hence, neither magazine can be relied upon as a neutral or reliable source for subjects other than for indicating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. On mundane topics, there is certainly always a more appropriate source for any point without any need to appeal to the literature of a minor religious organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower and Awake would be suited as sources ONLY regarding the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a group regarding article subjects. None of the magazine article content is reliable as a source to support facts about the subject of the articles. Please stop contributing content supported by Watchtower or Awake magazine except for content involving Jehovah Witnesses or Watch Tower Society. Joja lozzo 18:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those reputated magazines can be used for sources on religious articles or no religious articles. Remember: Awake! is a prestigious magazine and talks about histoy, science, medicine and other matters and always is right. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reputated" isn't a word, and though many copies of these magazines are printed, many people have never heard of them. Awake! is not a "prestigious" magazine, it's a monthly religious pamphlet. Provide a reliable source saying otherwise. The claim that Awake! "always is right" is hilarious, and reflects your own religious bias regarding that magazine as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say these wrong things because you was in the past a JW member, you do not say or explain the truth about it, and about this organization. --Pediainsight (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I am not a JW, and nor have I ever been 'disfellowshipped', though it is understandable that you would attempt an ad hominem attack. I assume this means you were unsuccessful in backing up your claim that Awake! is "prestigious"?

I have clearly explained why these religious magazines don't constitute reliable sources for subjects not related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and so has User:Jojalozzo. I could provide many instances that disprove your claim that Awake! "always is right", but I'll give just two.

Awake!, 8 July 1972, page 28:

And here again, it might be noted, that the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah—that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism—proved a safeguard.

So... are organ transplants "cannibalism", or was that an error?

Awake!, 22 May 1969, page 15:

Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the 'last days' in 1914, Jesus foretold: 'This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.' Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers.

So... those people who were told in 1969 that they would not have time to "fulfill any career that this system offers" 45 years ago, did they really not have time for a career? Or was Awake! wrong?

At this point, it's probably best if you simply stop trying to use these religious journals as though they are suitable sources for other topics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You Both, please, must recognize is not right use a phrase from 40 years ago for prove your sayings. Take scientific magazines from 30-40 years ago and compare those contents with the contents now, in 2010 - 2014. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A predictable response. So much for Awake! "always is right"?? But okay, I'll play...

Awake!, 13 May 2013, page 13:

Earlier, in 607 B.C.E., Babylonian armies razed Jerusalem and led most of the survivors into exile.

Wrong. Jerusalem was conquered in 587 BCE. Once again, Awake! is not suitable as a source for mainstream articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have deleted part of your ad hominem attack but left part intact. Though I owe you no explanation, I will say this to you once: I know a lot about the religion because I have relatives who are JWs, but I have never personally accepted those beliefs. Any further insinuations will be reported as personal attacks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, study yourself with right sources, and do not do with me a dispute or a battle without end. --Pediainsight (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about 'study' and 'battle' are silly and irrelevant. Just stop using inappropriate sources in Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jerusalem. The bible is not a reliable source for non-biblical topics. Joja lozzo 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a city with a special relation with the Bible, very related with the Bible. Only the Bible can be or is a valid source --Pediainsight (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and does not report unprovable theological opinions from religious texts as if they are facts. (And your edit was an uncited copyright violation from Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, page 48.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about and be sure you fully understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sources before you add anything more to this project. If you still have questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Otherwise you risk losing your editorial privileges. Joja lozzo 14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this article please, and think, is the Bible a valid source for the content or not?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Isaiah

See this othe article about this other city, Babylon, is the Bible here a source?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Babylon_(New_Testament)

Isaiah and Babylon (New Testament) are articles about topics that are specifically and only related to the Bible. You should note that Babylon is a separate article and does not contain any theological claims. Your attempted comparison is invalid. (As Babylon (New Testament) is a POV fork, I have nominated it for deletion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue with you or explain this stuff. You've been a Wikipedia editor since 2007. You need to figure out how Wikipedia sources work by reading the policy pages. Then please take your questions to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (And please sign your talk pages posts with "~~~~" and consider using indents, i.e. colons, to structure talk page discussions.) Joja lozzo 03:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are verses of the Bible in this non exclusive biblical article, yes or not?

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Resurrection

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this other article, please:

According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, the acacia tree may be the “burning bush” (Exodus 3:2) which Moses encountered in the desert.[22] Also, when God gave Moses the instructions for building the Tabernacle, he said to "make an ark" and "a table of acacia wood" (Exodus 25:10 & 23, Revised Standard Version). Also, in the Christian tradition, Christ's crown of thorns is thought to have been woven from acacia.[23]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Acacia

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See please, this other article:

The almond is highly revered in some cultures. The tree originated in the Middle East,[60] and is mentioned numerous times in the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, the almond was a symbol of watchfulness and promise due to its early flowering. In the Bible the almond is mentioned ten times, beginning with Book of Genesis 43:11, where it is described as "among the best of fruits". In Numbers 17 Levi is chosen from the other tribes of Israel by Aaron's rod, which brought forth almond flowers. According to tradition, the rod of Aaron bore sweet almonds on one side and bitter on the other; if the Israelites followed the Lord, the sweet almonds would be ripe and edible, but if they were to forsake the path of the Lord, the bitter almonds would predominate. The almond blossom supplied a model for the menorah which stood in the Holy Temple, "Three cups, shaped like almond blossoms, were on one branch, with a knob and a flower; and three cups, shaped like almond blossoms, were on the other...on the candlestick itself were four cups, shaped like almond blossoms, with its knobs and flowers" (Exodus 25:33–34; 37:19–20). Similarly, Christian symbolism often uses almond branches as a symbol of the Virgin Birth of Jesus; paintings often include almonds encircling the baby Jesus and as a symbol of Mary. The word "Luz", which appears in Genesis 30:37, is sometimes translated as "hazel", may actually be derived from the Aramaic name for almond (Luz), and is translated as such in some Bible versions such as the NIV.[61] The Arabic name for almond is "laoz". In some parts of the Levant it is pronounced "loz", which is very close to its Aramaic origin.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Almond

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to distinguish how these examples are different from your own use of the bible as a source, then I urge you to stop contributing content to Wikipedia and turn your efforts to correcting grammar and other errors. Your continued arguments against Wikipedia policy on reliable sources either a) verifies your difficulties in comprehending the structure that guides the editorial process here or b) exposes your personal agenda as more important to you than improving Wikipedia within its established guidelines. Joja lozzo 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jojalozzo, I have the distinct impression that Pediainsight does not understand the distinction. To him, 'the Bible' (as well as literature produced by his favoured religious publishing company) is an inerrant and authoritative source of material on any subject. He apparently does not understand the difference between using the Bible as a literary source from the Near East and as a source of theological claims. Also, based on his previous comments at Talk pages, I think your recommendation that he concentrate on correcting grammatical errors would also be unwise, as it appears that English is not his first language.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, unless and until this editor figures out how sources work here he/she should not be adding content to the project. I don't have time to work with him/her on this and I don't get a sense of willingness to work with us on her/his part. There are plenty of excellent resources available for learning about sourcing policy. If language competence is also an issue then I think that should be handled separately. I will be monitoring contributions for proper sourcing but have no interest in further discussion on this. Joja lozzo 03:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The translations of the Bible are not important, is the same one or other Bible or the translation, every Bible or translation can be a right source. --Pediainsight (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything about any particular translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

There is a big difference between history of homeopathy and history of Hahnemann, The material you added MIGHT belong in the article on Hahnemann, but not in the article on homeopathy. Ask on the talk page, first, and don't ever threaten to "add it back if you don't". That makes you sound like a troll. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, using your User page to host "your preferred version of disputed content" about homeopathy is a violation of WP:UP#COPIES.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting content which is primarily quotation of other documents as you just did at Homeopathy. We have made this request several times here in the last few weeks yet you continue in this activity despite repeated explanations of it's inappropriateness. If you persist in this it can lead to loss of your editorial privileges. Joja lozzo 05:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content is talking about the history of homeopathy, not the history of Hahnemann. I am going to introduce some aspects about the history of homeopathy. --Pediainsight (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I advise against it. That article is the result of extensive argumentation between warring parties and any edit not discussed on Talk is likely to be reverted. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i am trying to discuss this points in the discussion. Regards. --Pediainsight (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the homeopathy topic, Pediainsight. You may be wondering about the level of hostility you're receiving on what was really a small (but helpful) addition to the article, but if you spend any amount of time on the topic at all, you will understand that this is normal. Unfortunately, WP's administration currently supports this type of behavior related to this particular article. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors have not been particularly hostile, especially in view of the fact that the text provided by Pediainsight is an unattributed copyright violation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not hostile, Jeffro77? How about templating a regular (this account has been around since 2007), threatening a block, and calling him a troll. What is your definition of hostile? If the homeopathy regulars don't consider their behavior in this situation to be very hostile, then something is really wrong with the this topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been around for 7 years and still cannot grasp concepts about proper sourcing, plagiarism and neutral point of view. Clearly something is indeed very wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cla68, Wikipedia and some administrators, do not understand very much the homeopathy, but the content introduced by me about Napoleon is right, referenced, and for the interest of the people. --Pediainsight (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your misuse of sources regarding homeopathy. In this edit, you claimed that the Swiss Medical Weekly endorses homeopathy. However, that report actually reviews a separate report that endorsed homeopathy, and concluded that the other report "is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed". The Swiss Medical Weekly also added that the other report "proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs". It appears that you are just as willing to misrepresent sources in favour of homeopathy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language difficulties?

Hi, Pediainsight. It's Jojalozzo again. Given your history with this project, I am wondering whether English is your first language or not and I think it would help us all if we knew the answer to that. Is it? Joja lozzo 03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to modest contributions

Hi Pediainsight. I noticed you had stopped trying to post significant article content for a few weeks since I asked about your English language skills. I think that was a smart thing to do. However, I see you have gotten yourself re-involved in the Homeopathy article by posting erroneous information and misusing sources. That is not so good. I strongly recommend you stick to minor edits and stay clear of any significant content contributions because you do not seem to have sufficient understanding of policy, guidelines or English language constructions. Please keep your contributions minor and modest. Cheers. Jojalozzo (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that whilst Pediainsight's biased contributions on Wikipedia have diminished, his edits under the username Wiki Wisdom have gone relatively unchecked at WikiQuote for quite some time, where almost all of his edits assign undue weight to quotes appearing in Watch Tower Society literature, particularly their minor translation of the Bible. Secondary to those actions, Pediainsight's most frequent behaviour on Wikipedia has been to link Wikipedia articles to the pages he has modified on WikiQuote. This still constitutes improper promotion of his preferred religious publisher.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm McSly. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it 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 think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this source? Can I use it?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alert about editing Homeopathy

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Homeopathy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Jojalozzo (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this source? Can I use it?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could use that site, so long as you don't try to misrepresent it like the other Swiss article. But you probably don't want to. The article you have cited above says "raising awareness of homeopathy is the quickest way to dispel any belief in it". The source you have cited does not support homeopathy. The point of the article is that the more people learn about homeopathy, the less people will believe it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Homeopathy. Failing to do so is considered harassment, which is also disruptive behavior against editors. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ignaz Brüll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piano duo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom

Hi Pediainsight, I've just removed some information that you recently added to the Wisdom article.[6][7] If you feel that this information should be included, please feel free to discuss the reasons on the article Talk page, Talk:Wisdom, per the WP:BRD process. My concern is that the text contains information which is contentious, and that we should have supporting sources for it, per WP:V & WP:RS. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was lifted, once again, from a Watchtower Society publication used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Pediainsight has previously been warned about this behavior. BlackCab (TALK) 00:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Godly devotion

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Godly devotion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeffro77 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned previously about copyright violations and copy-and-pasting from uncited sources. Additionally, the content does not represent a mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]