User talk:Foorgood

Welcome
 Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Foorgood, Good luck and have fun. Vengeance 01 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Citing sources correctly
Hi, I noticed while perusing your contributions that you often add HTML links as sources. This is not good practice according to WP:CS:EMBED. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Citing sources and to provide complete citations of the material your are sourcing your contributions to. This will allow other contributors to check the reliability of your sources rapidly and, as a result, and they will revert your edits less often. Cheers.--JBchrch (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with JBchrch. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you I was just going to leave a message on your talk page saying i will work on doing that.Foorgood (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you tend to add supplementary sources without acknowledging the fact that there is already a source supporting the same facts. Compare what you have done vs my correction. Veverve (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh i see i guess since it said "possibly protestant parents" and it didnt have a source by it i had no idea your source (which i cant view online) would say the same thing.
 * As other editors have asked, please take the time to add proper citations WP:CS rather than bare URLs. Bare URLs create extra work for other editors who then have to spend time correcting your work. Thank you.FFM784 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Vladimir Lenin
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Atheism
Greetings! Judging from your contributions, you seem very proficient about atheism and faith. The atheism article is currently having some issues with citations in various locations. All issues have been raised in the atheism talk page, and your help would be extremely beneficial in saving it from going through FAR. If you have any will or free-time, your help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Bare URL´s
Please do not add bare URL´s als sources as you did here. Bare URLs are subject to link rot, they often stop working in the future, leaving the content unsourced. Thanks  JimRenge (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry you can correct it Im not sure how.Foorgood (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing and BRD
Do not WP:CANVASS, as you did here. You should also be following WP:BRD when your edit is challenged. Crossroads -talk- 02:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is no canvassing simply notifying the users of your edit warring when 2 users are in consensus with me against you.Foorgood (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Please do not cite articles with bare URLs. Such citations cannot be easily evaluated for reliablity. Please create full citations, preferably using the templates. You should always include author, date, title, and publisher as a minimum. Otherwise your additions are likely to be removed. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Important notice: biographies of living persons
--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello, I'm Sangdeboeuf. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Thomas Beatie, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to get the information published from him but please show me where email correspondence from the original source stating a fact about themselves and giving me authorization to make it public is not allowed on wikipedia? This was a failed proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Private_correspondence.Foorgood (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone but the subject of the article self-publishes material about them, including emails, it is not usable per WP:BLP. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So if Thomas Beatie records a video of himself saying this and sends it to me or he types and signs a pdf document saying this to me, are those acceptable?Foorgood (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and I strongly suggest you stop bothering this person about their parents' religious affiliation. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thomas was more than glad to share this with me and he loves telling his upbringing story in his book. Answer my question why wouldnt a video or pdf be acceptable?Foorgood (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Already answered; unless Beatie publishes (i.e. makes available to the ) the material himself, it's prohibited per BLP policy. Self-published material, even by the subject of the article, is never usable for claims about third parties (e.g. someone's parents). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so my last question is if he says on a pdf "this is to be available to the public" doesnt that fit the definition? because Thomas himself can publish the pdf online. Of course he can make claims about his parents he did it in his book.Foorgood (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The book was not self-published; that's why we use it. means 'made available to the public', not 'intended to be made available to the public'. Saying something is to be published isn't the same as publishing it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your biography edits
I am not "hunting your edits"; all of these pages are on my watchlist.— Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand and I appreciate you removing my Eva addition on Hitler's personal page. It was just frustrating about the "trivia" perspective.Foorgood (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Religion is not very important to me, but it is for others, especially in the era when these people were born. So it's not trivial for everyone or in every era. So I apologise.— Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and yes some editors work on general information others on specific details. I try to take everything from independent source publishers so thanks for catching the self published ones.Foorgood (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Your recent editing history at British Empire 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WCM email 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your reply in the Talk page.Foorgood (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going for here, Foorgood, reverting and. As a German Evangelical, the origin of his faith--if he had any faith--is in Lutheranism, like water is wet. But that's totally beside the point here: the German Evangelicals were their own sick brand; adding "Lutheran" means nothing in this context, and doing this in the caption of an article that is not about Muller or about that church is just a distraction. I'll add, as an FYI, that "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" has nothing to do with Cambridge University and only leans on that name, and that the jury is still out on their reputation; the couple of books that I have looked at from them are not very impressive, from a scholarly point of view. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir the point is the caption said “Shaking hands with Catholic dignitaries” before so why is it a problem to specify Lutheran now since it was wrong specifying Catholic and I have more top sources for it.,.

Foorgood (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Stop edit-warring, this is a bright-line violation on your part, reference or no reference.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m done edit warring Acroterion, I just was responding here to Drmies asking why was it allowed to say “Catholic dignitaries” before.Foorgood (talk) :2:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You responded with hostility to my observation that the man standing next to him appeared to be a Catholic clergyman with the unnecessarily aggressive response . I never said that I was 100% sure, so I consider that aggressiveness unacceptable. Who do you think that man was, and what do you think his religious identification was? I do not claim to be an expert in the religious garb of Nazi Germany, and readily admit that I am a Jew. But I attended a Catholic high school and graduated from Catholic university, decades ago. That guy looks like a Catholic prelate to me. What say you? Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Cullen you reverted my edit without even reading my source and I even have two other sources:, ,


 * Foorgood (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide quotations from those sources that discuss the identities of the people in this photo. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you were to click the link of each source above you would see the following quotes: "Later that year (on December 19th, 1933), the Lutheran Evangelical Reichsbischof,127 Ludwig Müller", "The German Christians were headed by a single Lutheran bishop, Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), a true believer", "Although the German Christians movement was officially born in 1932, formed and led by Lutheran Pastor Ludwig Müller". And these are the sources for the photo: https://www.akg-images.com/archive/-2UMDHUW6ORVC.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-adolf-hitler-l-greets-nuremberg-bishop-ludwig-mller-r-during-the-nuremberg-163698693.html https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/adolf-hitler-shakes-hands-with-the-protestant-reich-bishop-news-photo/959162802Foorgood (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about Müller who was the sort of "Lutheran" who wanted to purge the Old Testament. I am talking about the man standing next to him. Who was that? Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The man Hitler is shaking hands with is the Lutheran Bishop Ludwig muller while the man standing next to Ludwig is a Catholic bishop it's in the Getty image linkFoorgood (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just as I said all along. It was the Nazi Catholic prelate Albanus Schachleiter. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me you reverted my edit on who Hitler was shaking hands with because you said he wasnt a Lutheran.Foorgood (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the identification of Muller as "Lutheran" in the caption is redundant, esp. if it needs to be footnoted, and that he may have called himself, and been considered, a "Lutheran" in 1932, but the man that Hitler shook hands with was the Reichsbishof, not a "Lutheran bishop"--and Muller was never, as far as I can tell a bishop in the Lutheran church. He was a pastor, no more. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Drmies the point is you havent answered my question: why was it allowed to say "Catholic dignitaries" before but now when I correct it to say he was Lutheran you don't allow it?Foorgood (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was never "allowed". It was an error that was not noticed previously and that has now been corrected. But we do not correct an error by adding another error. Where is the evidence that Müller was actually a Lutheran bishop? Also, a Catholic dignitary is standing right next to Müller. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't "allow" anything. And you are completely missing the point. In common parlance, "Lutheran bishop" means a bishop in the Lutheran church. He wasn't. Can we move on now? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cullen is there something wrong here? Ive repeated to you three times the sources and quotes: "Later that year (on December 19th, 1933), the Lutheran Evangelical Reichsbischof,127 Ludwig Müller", "The German Christians were headed by a single Lutheran bishop, Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), a true believer", "Although the German Christians movement was officially born in 1932, formed and led by Lutheran Pastor Ludwig Müller"., ,

Foorgood (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are wrong or speaking casually. Müller was never appointed a bishop by any legitimate Chistian church. He was appointed as a bishop by a Nazi political functionary August Jäger against the opposition  of the established Christian churches. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And thats why i said how dare you make a false claim original research against three independent reputable sources.Foorgood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * False? Please read Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, especially Friedrich von Bodelschwingh. Müller was not in any sense a legitimate Lutheran bishop. He was a "Reichsbischof" imposed by the Nazis. It is also interesting that the German Wikipedia biography of Müller does not call him Lutheran. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Im done arguing this but here is a source in German from the 40s saying he was a Lutheran Bishop- In english it translates "the Lutheran Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller was taken in because he too was striving for the Lutheran Church of the German Nation".
 * Foorgood (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He was a Lutheran pastor, yes. He was also a Lutheran. But "Reichsbischof" was not a position in the Lutheran church--that some of your sources use the phrase doesn't make it so, and it is better to be more precise here rather than less precise. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok i can accept that.Foorgood (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Henry VII of England 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me you are the one who was been edit war reverting.Foorgood (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Foorgood! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at St Mary's Church, Pembroke that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I literally just told you not to tag edits as minor, and what do you do? Revert in the midst of an AN3 discussion after already reverting 5 times in the space of 6 hours and tag the revert as minor. You're lucky the block is only for 31 hours. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I also second all the requests for you to fill bare urls. There are tools available for this, such as WP:ReFill. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Drkay I didn't revert i simply changed the word from record to documentation as it says in your source. Will you uphold the addition of St Marys church on Henry VII's page if someone removes it?Foorgood (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why someone would remove it, but if it was removed and I wanted to retain it, then I would start a talk page discussion not revert the removal. DrKay (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok and is this block the result of the notice board as well wouldn't it be closed then?Foorgood (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * would the block be able to simply be 24 hours?Foorgood (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

.
 * After grave warnings at WP:ANI, you immediately moved to disruptive axe grinding and POV pushing about Elon Musk's religion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sir each of the 10 comments I made was respectful and calm I didn't argue at all I asked questions and when they were all answered and consensus was against me I accepted it and left.Foorgood (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments were in support of bad sourcing, which has been a consistent issue with you. You were told they were bad, and you persisted. You kept on doing the same things you were doing before, just in another topic. That's a waste of volunteer time to deal with, and you've wasted enough of everybody's time. You haven't listened to advice. Again, I am considering your conduct as a whole, not just individual places where you've caused trouble, in isolation.   Acroterion   (talk)   23:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted to understand if business insider was unreliable which I was unaware of. Please compare the difference between AEO and Andy's situations where I accused them of things and demanded they accept my position VS this Elon Musk talk page where I intentionally decided it would be completely different so that every comment I made was in a very respectful tone by simply asking questions so that I could fully understand and once they established their consensus against me I said ok that's fine and stopped. I wanted this talk discussion to be my example of how I am to conduct myself on talk pages by having a good discussion like other editors do. Please in that consideration may the block be months instead of infinite if you have a restriction as a last chance where if I ever revert someone ONCE I get banned for life. Or should I wait to make another appeal next month?Foorgood (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)