User talk:72.76.111.177

Dec 22

Please read wp:cite and wp:rs. Your recent additions seemed to be trying to include text changes as cites. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Slatersteven, just because you don't find my additions useful, doesn't mean nobody else will either. That's what it really boils down to. However, I don't really care one way or the other, since all my additions are still available to read by anyone who goes back and reads past versions of this article, which most people will who are aware of the various games which article writers play on Wikipedia. Especially when they check and see the sheer amount of my additions that you have deleted - that looks quite suspicious, in and of itself. They will wonder, why would someone delete all that? Then, when they check the material that was deleted, they will see that it was all factual historical material which when thoroughly checked, will be seen to have been accurate. Material which is not controversial and/or is not likely to be challenged for accuracy is not supposed to be deleted unless there is a good reason to do so - not just because you happen to think it isn't useful. This is a big problem on Wikipedia. People spend a lot of time writing articles, and often they resent it or don't like it when other people make additions and/or alterations to their work. But like I said before, it doesn't really bother me, because what I added to the article is still available to be read. To me, that's all that really matters! 72.76.111.177 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All content must be sourced, and formatted correctly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct that according to Wikipedia's rules, all content must be sourced and formatted correctly. However, you yourself are the only person who would ever likely know that the material I added to the article was not part of the material which had been correctly sourced. The material I added is accurate, but it is true that I did not source it. I doubt if most (or even any) article readers are in the habit of checking ALL the material they are reading to make sure it has been sourced and formatted correctly. To do so would be pedantic and time-consuming in the extreme. I would say that most Wikipedia article readers don't really care about this Wikipedia rule except - rightfully - when the added material in question or at issue is obviously of a controversial or disputable nature. As the material I added to the article is not of a controversial or disputable nature, my view is that it should not have been deleted - since most, if not all, article readers would not be able to detect that the added material was not part of the material which had been correctly sourced and formatted. However, since the material I added can still be accessed and read as a previous version of the article, I will just leave matters as they stand and I will not be making any further revisions to the article. 72.76.111.177 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Martinez de Pasqually, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 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. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.