User talk:Kovaliov

Welcome!

Hello, Kovaliov, 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 edits to the page Opus Dei have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to 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. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have content policies

Wikipedia operates on reliable sources and a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or push your version of the truth. I recommend if you have problems with articles, discuss on the talk page first. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view" when talking about Opus Dei is impossible, by definition. Kovaliov (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 05:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Andrew Tate have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Liliana ^(UwU) 02:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'constructive'? Having articles on pimps who make their fortune preying on lonely men and women pushed to exploit their own bodies is hardly something a normal person would consider constructive. Also, saying that it was not 'constructive' is quite a subjective judgment. And who gives you or anyone the authority to define what is 'constructive'? I find the new morality police of the internet more rigid than the most rigid censors. Kovaliov (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shut the fuck up Mst5506 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]