User talk:Organize2

Welcome!

Hello, Organize2, 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 complete 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! Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
We have a tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure, if you would like to learn more about editing Wikipedia.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. This is intentional.
User-generated sources (such as blogs, social media profiles, self-published books, or pay-to-print books) are generally not reliable sources. The only exception is when an already notable subject makes a claim about themselves that is not countered or doubted by independent sources.
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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm HickoryOughtShirt?4. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try to avoid editing while logged out. It gives the impression that you're trying to avoid scrutiny for your edits, which would be editing in bad faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Eloah. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eloah 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start communicating with other editors. These messages are not automated, they are being sent by other humans for a reason. If you cannot or will not communicate with other editors, you will be removed from the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for refusal or inability to communicate, edit warring, and creating a new account to continue said edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see that your editions to Eloah were plagiarized from the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible.

Wikipedia does not accept copyright violations or plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]