User talk:Philipbrochard

CS1 error on Traditionalist conservatism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Traditionalist conservatism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Philipbrochard, 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 Cultural conservatism 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.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Eastern European cuisine, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Although we are grateful for the addition of the image into the article, please read Help:Pictures before adding any more images to articles. Your edit adding the image of kefir ended up just sitting bare in the article, as a massive image. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify:

[[File:Kefir in a glass.JPG|Kefir_in_a_glass]] creates a giant image in the middle of the article with no placement or size information, as seen here.
[[File:Kefir in a glass.JPG|Kefir_in_a_glass|thumb|[[Kefir]], a fermented milk drink originating in the [[North Caucasus]] region.]] creates a smaller, thumbnail sized image with a caption, as seen Special:Diff/1212304094 and in the other images in the article.

I hope this helps! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Race and genetics

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Race and genetics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of edits that are copied from other sources

If text is copied from our articles, you must note this in the edit summary with a link to that article. If it's copied from a source with a compatible licence, add the url to the edit summary. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say I did this when I was new also. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. i am new to wikipedia but i have re read the rules and will consider them in the future. thankyou for alerting me, this is all beneficial. Philipbrochard (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's important to know this. Useful to look at the top of talk pages in the subject. No reason for a new user to know this either - see my new post above. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing my edit as being "in bad faith" in edit summary

Methinks you violated "Assuming good faith (AGF)"; please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith : "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia".

In your edit summary reverting my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1217704379 you made a valid point, but labeling it "in bad faith" I found to be both untrue and a personal insult.

I shall endeavor to find a better and more accurate wording than either those before and after the reversion. "Officiates" is misleading since in the Catholic Church a priest officiates with the sacrament being conferred on each other by the couple being married. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, a priest performs the sacrament; the couple being married say nothing (except by local custom where, before the crowning commences, the priest asks two questions about consent and not being promised to another). The sacrament of matrimony is performed by the priest in a manner analogous to a priest absolving sins at the sacrament of confession.

Also, I shall rename-subsections to conform to the wording in the Euchologion (Trebnik) and when my time permits, I will comb through the liturgical texts and reputable writings to amend this. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church. 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. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CanonNi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Signs of the coming of Judgement Day, 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to Signs of the coming of Judgement Day was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. Regardless of the copyright issue, the material appears to have been copied from Reddit, which is not a reliable source for any topic on Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Malhama Al-Kubra. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Your edit (diff) at Noah's Ark is original research and is not permitted at Wikipedia. Instead, articles must be based on reliable sources. If you are not willing or able to accept that situation, you will have to find another website. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen Fux, Beta Mucks" ? Unsourced and I can't find a source

So where did you get this from? Doug Weller talk 13:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic eschatology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masjid Al Aqsa. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo

One or two refs should suffice for most things. Also per MOS:REFSPACE you shouldn't be adding spaces between them. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit fight and disrespecting culture

Wikipedia is not a place of promoting your own opinion, it's not a place of fighting over salafa and what some groups of people from your religion has to say about others culture. In many cultures Bindi has been worn, and many scholars don't think it's bidah as it has nothing to do directly to any other religions. Wikipedia is not your fatwa giving places. And when it comes to Islamic clothing, there's literally a Wikipedia article about it so maybe work on that. And when it comes to the prophet's wives, they were required to dressed like that because of their stage. You might get blocked from Wikipedia for this continuously editing on Walima and Islamic marital practices. Wikipedia is not a place a of self promotion and yes you are self promoting as you're promoting your own opinion based on religious Controversies without proper research, study, proof and reliable sources. 2400:2412:44C1:7D00:EDE8:9177:7108:6508 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last straw

With this edit[1] the edit summary says "stop using cushion words" referring to the word "some" that he removed from "daf holds special importance because some Muslims believe that it is the only musical instrument which is permitted to be used". The source contains a quote saying "Some Muslims hold all forms of music to be forbidden, others permit certain forms of unaccompanied singing, while others will permit the use of daff or drum like a tambourine (without the cymbals). In some Sufi circles the flute or lute are permitted. It's clear you shouldn't be editing here. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment here - I'm sad to see your name pop up at SPI. Please take the standard offer to heart - no socks, no edits, nothing for those six months and nothing sock-y or nefarious after. What Doug Weller and others have said on your talk page is true (and helpful regarding original research & reliable sourcing), and hopefully you'll take it to heart and come back once you qualify for the standard offer. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied for the Standard Offer, im on waitlist right now to see if my appeal is accepted Philipbrochard (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 25 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Appealing block on grounds of disruptive editingPhilipbrochard (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing duplicate request placed in a section header; edits should only be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic". 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Appealing block on grounds of disruptive editingPhilipbrochard (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I'm writing to address the recent ban imposed on my editing privileges due to disruptive behavior. I want to extend my sincerest apologies for any disruption my actions may have caused within the community. Upon reflection, I realize that my editing approach fell short of the standards expected on Wikipedia.

I understand that my behavior may have been perceived as disruptive, and I acknowledge the impact it had on the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I recognize the importance of adhering to the site's policies and guidelines to maintain a positive editing environment.

To address the issues that led to my ban, I am taking proactive steps to educate myself further on Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. Additionally, I am reaching out to experienced editors for feedback and guidance on improving my editing practices. Moving forward, I am committed to exercising greater caution and respect in my contributions, ensuring they align with Wikipedia's core principles of accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability.

I understand that rebuilding trust within the community will require consistent effort and demonstration of positive behavior. I am genuinely committed to regaining your trust and contributing constructively to Wikipedia once again.

I want to take a moment to explain what my thought process was,

I know how to discern my personal opinions from fact, and I strongly believed that I had factual, source based answers for my edit. Since they were reverted, I felt extremely frustrated at the moment because I felt that the others were putting undue weight or weasel wording unorthodox views onto the article, and I feel that the article should atleast point out the mainstream consensus views rather than fringe views. In the future, I will make sure to discuss my point in the talk page of an article rather than edit warring. Due to my relatively new experience with wikipedia (only been less than a year so far) I felt as if my links were not being taken seriously when I had given sources, such as on a page about merits.

In the future I will aim to resolve these disputes cordially on talk pages, at the same time I hope people can understand my point of contention about undue weight.

Thank you for your consideration and understanding. Philipbrochard (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Chatbot generated requests are not considered; you wrote most of this with an AI according to GPTzero. We want to hear from you, not an AI, because you are the one blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2024 (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.

I've formatted your request to contain your entire initial statement. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Requesting second unblock Philipbrochard (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

13 !?!?!?!?! sockpuppet accounts?!?!?!?!!?!?! That's wildly abusive. There's no chance anyone's going to lift the block in the near future. Your best bet to demonstrate you should be unblocked is to follow the process outlined in WP:SO. That requires six months with zero edits. I'd also strongly advise suggesting a WP:TOPICBAN in your future unblock request. I simply don't see any reasonable possibility of you being unblocked without one. Yamla (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2024 (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.

Comment:

I will first go over reasons for my blocking, since I have now reviewed wikipedia policy. They are disruptive editing, repeating edits (3 strike policy for reverts), using other accounts to edit, as well as edit warring.

I understand why I was blocked / banned.

I will keep my explanation brief. I personally felt that there was incorrect information and that I had to change it. Being new to Wikipedia, I can now see looking back how aggressive I was due to myself feeling frustrated at information that I felt was wrong or misleading. I continue to learn about how to appropriately use wikipedia. In my dorm, I do have friends who are way better at wikipedia, and I will ask them for advice on how to edit more properly, considering that I am relatively new.

In the future, I will use talk pages to talk about my information dispute, politely, rather than edit warring.

I hope you can see that I am hoping to change my behaviour at wikipedia.

This website is very important to me and I hope to make editing a hobby of mine in a productive manner.

I apologize for my previous inappropriate behaviour and hope that the block can be lifted soon, and that I can rejoin wikipedia as a productive member - and knowing how to properly discuss disputes in an organized manner.

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).

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

Request reason:

Third appeal for unblock for sockpuppetry, will make concessions Philipbrochard (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a very vague unblock request, but I assume the text below it is supposed to explain it. In the future, don't write like this. Put your unblock request inside the unblock request template. If you're truly going to take the standard offer, then stop editing Wikipedia for six months. Make an unblock request in six months, which would be November 2024. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (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.

I understand, thank you for letting me know. Yes it was bad behavior from me and it was wildly inappropriate, I made a grave error on wikipedia by breaching their policies on honest editing, and in the future I will not commit this inappropriate action.

Since Wikipedia is very important for me as a hobby and I want to demonstrate proper behaviour in good faith, I would like to request some concessions.

I will do the WP:SO standard offer which means absolutely zero edits from me for exactly six months, zero.

My additional concession is that even after the six months end, I will do additional months (to your liking) of Article space topic ban, on the topics of politics, countries, nations, current events, cars, roads, sports. I do hope that by around at least a year I really do hope I can regain access to those topics because they are interests of mine.

I understand my past behavior was abhorrent but I wish to change because I really care about this hobby of mine. Please consider appealing my ban.