User talk:Anonymous Hidden

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Hidden, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Anonymous Hidden! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pope Sixtus III, 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. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Saint Peter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu I'm So Hatred to Editors that Reverts My Edit on Page Saint Peter SO STOP IT AND DONT REVERT MY EDIT IAM TIRED AND HATRED! IAM ADDING REAL INFORMATION ON THE PAGE AND ITS FROM MY RELIGIOUS RELATIVE! Anonymous Hidden (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to seek professional help. Your edits are unwelcome because you do not understand what Wikipedia is. See WP:NOT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to image titles

Please stop making useless edits. There is plenty of useful work round here you, and the editors who revert you, could be doing. Britmax (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Wasting Your Time Britmax! So Stop that Stupid Habit and My Edit is Just Change What is Wrong? And IAM Adding Real Information and Wikipedia is Not Just For Your Distraction to Disrespect Changes On Wikipedia,Wikipedia is For Real Information Not For Vandalism,Edit War,Disrespecting Other Editors,etc. And Editors Need Knowledge Not Just Citing Anonymous Hidden (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Britmax (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Saint Peter. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Saint Peter. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]