Hi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Reformulated:
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.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Muhammad's views on Jews. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JBW ( talk) 10:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Shakshouka. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. your edit summary was an attack.
Doug Weller
talk
11:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Your narrative is not factual but indoctrination.is indeed a personal attack. Also, contrary to what you seem to think, the content that you added is not properly sourced as there is nothing encyclopedic or even remotely reliable about what "foodies", "daughters of the Mediterranean" and "architecture students" have to say about culinary history. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Mayo890 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your administrators are so biased. They cancel my edits when I have provided 3 sources and there was absolutely no source to support the previous claim that was made. One administrator called me "rude" for absolutely no reason. This is unprofessional and unacceptable. The other user kept reversing my edits without providing neither reason nor sources and nothing happened to them. If this is the policy at Wikipedia, I am glad not to be part of it.
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
administrators are so biased. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). 03:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Reformulated:
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.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Muhammad's views on Jews. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JBW ( talk) 10:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Shakshouka. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. your edit summary was an attack.
Doug Weller
talk
11:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Your narrative is not factual but indoctrination.is indeed a personal attack. Also, contrary to what you seem to think, the content that you added is not properly sourced as there is nothing encyclopedic or even remotely reliable about what "foodies", "daughters of the Mediterranean" and "architecture students" have to say about culinary history. M.Bitton ( talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Mayo890 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your administrators are so biased. They cancel my edits when I have provided 3 sources and there was absolutely no source to support the previous claim that was made. One administrator called me "rude" for absolutely no reason. This is unprofessional and unacceptable. The other user kept reversing my edits without providing neither reason nor sources and nothing happened to them. If this is the policy at Wikipedia, I am glad not to be part of it.
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
administrators are so biased. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). 03:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)