User talk:Factazoidtruthonly1232

November 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Battle of Ctesiphon (363), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mako001 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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) 21:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Monotheism, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can a citation be added to the document? (I'm confused about the coding for that), Also, does it suffice to put it on the "explanation" of the edit? Facttruther11 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Monotheism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on talk:Monotheism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not sure who you are, but this is an unfair warning.

I addressed him politely many times and his comments were rude and dismissive. I asked for clarity on the rules (on that page) and presented sources and he ignored my questions/arguments. I gave him a Harvard source and he said it wasn't valid. He has a right to opinions, but not to his own facts. Calling someone a liar is not as offensive as his disrespectful comments and repeated reversions.

I told him "If you have time I would like to know how the verification works - or where I can go to read for myself..." and proceeded to write my reasoning. His response was "That's not the whole truth and nothing but the truth..."

This is my Response - verbatim and even if it has strong language, I do not believe it is an attack: You know you are wrong because that page says many different things and not all are perfectly in sync. It many times suggests it as a pure monotheism. So it is you who is not giving "nothing but the truth and the whole truth". I disagree with your overall opinion (though I don't know if it's an honest one) and I do not expect a full answer to the rest of my questions. You're overbearingly defending one interpretation among many as though it was inherently true. You ask me to prove that mine is true, but never asked for proof that Judaism or Christianity are monotheistic. If you really cared, you would read the full thing and not just go to one source. Either way, your language right now is so biased that I believe you don't really care about the truth. That is why wikipedia is unscholarly. Facttruther11 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I stated my belief and left it at that. If wikipedia considers this more "disrespectful" than his own attitude, then I will gladly find another outlet. My language is not insulting, it is a reasonable response to his rudeness. I agreed to disagree with him and on the basis of his rudeness and dismissiveness, I was unsure if he was presenting an accurate view. I stated the truth that truth cannot be taken from just one source while ignoring the others. I also expressed my disapproval of his unprofessional demeanor. Believing that he does not care about truth is not an atack.

Wikipedia does not trust what editors say, it trusts what WP:RS say. You have failed to provide WP:RS for changing the article, that's the whole problem. We have little patience for editors who proclaim WP:THETRUTH but cannot provide WP:RS for WP:V their claims. So, no, Wikipedia does not believe you, does not believe me, does not believe Weller, it only believes reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "we". I gave a valid WP:RS and you denied it. I don't care what an artificial "website" believes. Harvard is more reliable than the sources that have been permited. Wikipedia is not even capable of belief on its own. Wikipedia editors have biases. That's a fact, and Belief was not even brought up, so that's funny for any one to say so. There's a better subject I want to bring up.

Have you read the page "Joker (2019)"? Facttruther11 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wrong, you have never inserted a Harvard source in the article.~~ Prove me wrong. Oh, yes, you did, but it fails to WP:V your claim that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail to claim the other. Facttruther11 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call that two-liner a WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Facttruther11! Your additions to Monotheism have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]