User talk:DameCurieuse

Original research
I see you've been reverted at Anarchism and I've reverted your other edits. New editors often don't know about our basic policies and guidelines - I certainly didn't when I started and was frequently reverted. We are a mainstream encyclopedia whose articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources say about a subject, and generally those sources need to be independent of the subject. We can't, for instance, offer examples ourselves, we need to find suitable sources offering examples. Nor can we "added quote/supporting evidence, contrary to stated opinion". Editing here is very different from writing an essay, where you can build up an argument from a variety of sources that don't discuss the subject of the article. Please read WP:NOR.

To quote from policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; tomb plaques; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs."

Then there's the introduction to articles, eg Melchizedek. We call that the "lead", sometimes spelled "lede", and our guideline is at WP:LEAD. It's meant to cover the main points of the article body. It shouldn't be full of quotes (nor should our articles). A minor point, "in" is used in a number of versions of the Bible, it wasn't incorrect.

The learning curve here can be quite steep. After more than 150,000 edits even I have more to learn. Don't let this discourage you. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Messiah
Hi DameCurieuse. Please do not add a mass of primary source text to articles. This is inappropriate, especially in the lead. --Neil N  talk to me 19:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Messiah, you may be blocked from editing. Pepper Beast   (talk)  20:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

June 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 20:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)