User talk:Egon20

Welcome!

Hello, Egon20, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Reincarnation did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. DanCherek (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I'm FULBERT. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Polytheism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can watch his videos, he doesn't say that there are many gods but that the Bible talks about many divinized individuals who were neither divine nor a single one. To support that he often cites the fact that Elohim is plural but since the Bible is believed by others to be holy then it should be Polytheist. Egon20 (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Polytheism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why I did this is because Wikipedia doesn't allow YouTube references. If you were to watch his videos, you would know that he says so, even though I didn't find websites for that. About this, I know I haven't lied so I don't feel guilty. --Egon20 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Domestic violence, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".
To reiterate: anything that changes meaning should not be marked as minor. If you're unsure, it's better to leave it as not being minor; you can always add "probably minor" into the edit summary instead in those cases. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for this help and for the advice, I always want to help. As you could see on this talk page, it's hard to make changes without proper references. For example, Alessandro Sacchi is an Italian monarchist but I can't cite his interviews published on youtube, and as a consequence I can't write the ideology of the Italian Monarchist Union, what the leader thinks and his reasons. About this, do you have any advice for me? The biggest problem is that youtube videos are not accepted on Wikipedia. Egon20 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some limited circumstances you can link to YouTube; basically, if it's an interview from a verified news account, you should be good to cite it. That being said, it would be best to first get familiar with WP:RSPYT, WP:YT, and WP:VIDEOLINK to make sure you understand whether the interviews are reliable and how we generally approach YouTube. It's also good to keep in mind that interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources, so even if you can cite them, you'll need to be careful in how you use them. For example, an interview is a great source on where that person was born, but if the person makes a claim about how many snails live in the ocean, you can't use the video as a reference on "20 billion snails live in the sea" (except maybe if they're a very respected snail scientist). If you're unsure if a source can support a particular statement, the best place to start is on the discussion page of the article. If its an article that doesn't get a lot of traffic, or there's some other issue, you can ask one of the article's WikiProjects or go to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, is the video "Monarchia?" from the youtube channel "Video Italia Puglia", published five years ago, a valid source? and if so, how can I cite the video? Thanks for answering my questions.

November 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Feminism, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. Adakiko (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Care to explain what the edit summary "superiority" means in this edit? And why you think that stat is relevant to speaking of women's equality? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superiority is just a name for the article that the bbc wrote. It talks about bias and how men are preferred to women. It is relevant because in domestic violence, that is supposed to be a wrong thing, there appear percentages of people who support violence, so to be equal I put the article on feminism. My edit was for equality, not for vandalism or something else, and it is also a good information so why should we remove it? Egon20 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and for egregious waste of other editors' time.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 3 December 2021 (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).

Egon20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm just trying to help

Decline reason:

Clearly not. Yamla (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2022 (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.