User talk:Ben Ammi
Hi Ben Ammi; I see no-one's offered you a welcome message, so here's mine – it's sincere but stripped-down-and-sparse.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I noticed your coherent, forceful edit summary justifying your removal of unreferenced text in Sacred prostitution, and your recent comment to similar effect at the article talk page. I personally agree with your removal but you'll probably need to argue your case with sources. In any event, your talk-page comment would best be repositioned further down, or it'll probably be overlooked. Oh, and please don't forget to sign your messages. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1 Please don't copy entire articles to Wikipedia
- 2 July 2011
- 3 Your recent edits
- 4 Talkback
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for November 14
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for December 1
- 7 December 2012
- 8 Regarding the use of blogs
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for December 8
- 10 Regarding sources
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for July 17
- 12 August 2013
- 13 Opting in to VisualEditor
- 14 ArbCom elections are now open!
Please don't copy entire articles to Wikipedia
please do not copy entire articles to Wikipedia, like you did on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. This is against Wikipedia's copyright policy, unless you know that the original text was released under suitable license. If you want to reference an article, please provide an URL link to it instead. Thank you, hydrox (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Anders Behring Breivik. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Anders Behring Breivik, you may be blocked from editing. Cerejota (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You decided which quotes to include or not include out of a 1500+ page document. That is the very definition of original research.--Cerejota (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Which quotes have I inappropriately added? All the quotes I've added are from the manifesto. Those are his own words, and as the other users, I consider it pertinent to the article. The article about Hitler has "selectively" selected words from thousands of speeches, as essentially all articles do.--Ben Ammi (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do apologize; I tend to forget this, but try to remedy it as quickly as possible.--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Jasher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This should be fixed now.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kittim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm Tiggerjay. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nephilim, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tiggerjay (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the use of blogs
Per our reliable sourcing guidelines, especially the section on user generated sources and self published sources, we almost never use blogs, which includes pretty much any Wordpress site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The above message is one such argument as to why your edits to Nephilim are being reverted. You said you were open to such arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In reference to the articles Tetramorph, Living Creatures and Cherubim, and possibly a few others: If one specific, and in this case very small, aspect of my contributions was problematic, I find it would have been much easier for you or someone else to simply delete that line of text (a link) than for me to have to now re-write my contributions. This is highly discouraging to contributors. At this point, I would have to revert the deletion of my contributions, and then edit from that point, in order to begin to add my contributions again. Awaiting reply. Ben Ammi (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored and then manually removed the parts that go against WP:No original research, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and so forth. When trying to do so for Living creatures (Bible), the manual edit ended up the same as the revert and didn't save. The edit summary explaining each change was more or less: we don't cite blogs, and we don't cross reference different parts of primary texts to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either work. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aladura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, because that would lead to circular sourcing (i.e. saying something is true because we said its true because we said its true...), and because Wikipedia is a user generated source (and we have almost no way of confirming that any of our users are authorities on the topic). I've replaced your citation of Wikipedia in the Saturnalia article with the reference used to support the statement you cited in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. Please do like wise in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spengler's civilization model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your recent editing history at Spengler's civilization model shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SFK2 (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Um, I warned the spammer that he was engaging in edit war and spouting 100& original research nonsense. I DID engage the spammer in the Talk page but was continually ignored. I guess you prefer Wikipedia to contain obvious falsehoods rather than concerned editors.
- Ben Ammi (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it. How is he free to post OR ? It's verifiably and obviously uncyclopedic, has NOTHING to do with the rest of the article and is ANTI-SEMITIC AND ANTI-ASIAN aren't you registering that?
- You still have to follow WP:3RR. Several editors are reverting this guy, and I've just blocked him for breaking 3RR after being warned. Original research isn't an exemption from 3RR although I understand why you wish it were. It was brought up at WP:FTN which is how I discovered the edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "
Enable the visual editor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)