User talk:Enyo 2182

February 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Theistic Satanism, 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. Remember: Wikipedia is not censored. GenoV84 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Keillers Park murder you made a change for which you gathe edit summary "Fixed typo". What you did was nothing like correcting a typo, as you must have known. Please make sure that your edit summaries accurately reflect what your editing does. JBW (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing of the article Temple of the Black Light has unambiguously turned it into a page promoting the view of the organisation which it would wish to be known, rather than an account written from a neutral point of view by outsiders. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also your editing, both in that article and elsewhere, suggests that you may have a personal connection to the subjects you have written about. If so please read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before doing any more editing relating to subjects to which you are personally connected, and make sure you comply with it.
You have removed material from articles, claiming that it is incorrect. If apparently reliable sources cited in an article support content of the article which you think should be removed because you believe it is inaccurate, then please explain on the article's talk page why you regard the sources as unreliable, and if possible provide a reliable source establishing that the information is inaccurate. Obviously we can't accept such changes merely on the basis that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipediaa account says so, because anyone can create a Wikipedia account and post anything they like.
If you find that other editors disagree with your editing of a page, don't just keep changing the content of the page back to your preferred version. If we accepted that as a way of settling disputes it would just mean that the most stubborn editor would always eventually get their way. Instead, explain on the relevant talk page why you think that your version is better, and be prepared to discuss the questions involved, with a view to trying to reach agreement. Continually reverting to one's own preferred version, known as "edit-warring", is considered disruptive, and editors who persist in doing so may be blocked from editing by administrators. More detailed information about that is in the policy on edit-warring. JBW (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found that a large proportion of the content you added to the article Temple of the Black Light was copied from another website. It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. JBW (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]