User talk:Researcher1988

Capital letters

I see that you have added relevant and interesting facts in several articles about food, also giving sources for your additions. Good work! However, it would be great if you could try to learn when to use and especially when not to use capital letters in English language prose. Keep up the good work. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sol 159.255.48.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning

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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Researcher1988, I am not an administrator but my suggestion is to read again the above warning, even though it may be in an unrelated issue. I feel you are trying to impose your view without trying to find a reasonable compromise with the other editor in your dispute in Zoroastrianism. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Im not. but I think that other user have problem with Zoroastrianism, and wants to impose their personal views by re-editing my edits. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:Ethnicity

Per MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Feel free to start a discussion, on relevant talk pages, to gain consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Why This is not the case with Shakespeare and Goethe? Both have cited Ethnicity Before their names in the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Civility

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Talk:Zoroastrianism. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.[1] --Thinker78 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Masters theses

Only PhD dissertations are considered reliable sources; Masters theses are not. Please do not use Masters theses (yours?) to source Zoroastrianism. If you disagree, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard to get consensus about your specific proposed sources. Please do not continue to edit-war to include them without such a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]

one of these papers by Mario Ferrero is a research paper and not a master thesis which has been published in various sites.

the other by Jason Heckert is a masters thesis but is published and thus should be considered reliable sources. besides, Wikipedia does not mention that master thesis are not Reliable. it says: "masters dissertations and thesis are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant Scholarly influence." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That's your fault for providing only a link without expanding the details of the citation. Your edit summaries said it was a thesis, why should I second guess you? Skyerise (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

I will re-Add the other source as well. the Master thesis by Jason Heckert has been published in various websites ad thus had significant Scholarly influence. so it can be considered a WP:RS Researcher1988 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

And I will remove it. It is not WP:RS. If you believe otherwise, get an ok from the reliable sources noticeboard: that's what its for. If you continue to readd Masters thesis, I will report you for edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Since one thesis was spammed in multiple places, Imma gonna have to assume it was yours. Best not to give the appearance of having a conflict of interest, when other sources exist.

Hello, Researcher1988. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Zarathustrianism, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with conflict of interest. I simply find the source on the Internet. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Then it's not needed, since everywhere it was used has at least one better source cited. Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Put it in Further reading if you like, though. Skyerise (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your edit to Zoroastrianism has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GretLomborg (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A courtesy note regarding Wikipedia culture

Hi there. Please take this in the mode of friendly and helpful advise. As a matter of courtesy it is generally preferable to use they / them pronouns for all editors unless they disclose otherwise in which case we should their preferred pronouns. In the case of VFF they state on their userpage that they prefer they / them specifically. It is generally good courtesy to comply in these cases. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

ok. no problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Zorostrianism 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. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)