User talk:Jo-E Numbers

Welcome!
←== November 2022 == Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page David Parker Ray has been reverted. Your edit here to David Parker Ray was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xuyw-B68WqE) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I literally spent an hour transcribing a. Report authories themselves said was authentic & even left out what wasn't. Yet guy who banned me says pipehead stuff without citing anyone & that's who decides? The guy who who thinks a cite is a page on the net but I transcribe to make sure I don't put anything non official & he bans me. I had sources, he thinks a source is where he heard something! C'mon I deserves a shot to show a editor who doesn't get corrections by users daily yet does nothing. Is he make a wish like wtf I just want a fair shake with a person who doesn't believe the block button wards off haters, I'd take a chimp over this guy for my info & banning and both be better. Don't punish me because 1 nuerodivergent editor, everyone else is cool & really bright but that guy man, he's like the Rudy of your group which I don't care but don't let him decide if I'm blocked ... Not the guy who probably thinks ip address is where you urinate I beg you

December 2022
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to David Parker Ray—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Alkaloid. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Because alkaloids are important but you hiding the case of child rapists so they are more palatable isn't? I know how your site works I didn't want problems but you will not speak with me and if that's the case just ban me and I will create a hundred emails and keep the facing everything you do scientist guy. How about showing some respect for a long time officer who killed himself and not wiping him off the page as if he doesn't exist but then taking this seriously. I know Wikipedia is broke but I thought it was a good community and everyone else has been except for you so have a combo with me or let's go to war and you seem to care a lot more than me trust me I will thank her with every single edit or punctuation you made to this site or just talk to an editor who tried to message you saying he meant no harm like a human being or any of the child and I'll sign up with a different email then we will see who can be most childish useless subject material scientist Jo-E Numbers (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification: Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding  below this notice. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC) I did deface his page but hopefully to get a response for once not my m.o .... His brain I thought may be gifted so after ignoring me & putting up incorrect uncited things all over the site (and being told but again NOONE home,) what was I supposed to do,, he's maybe feline smart so I thought a big change will call attention but he seems to remain in her persistent vegetative state so can someone else help me  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Alkaloid, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia basics
Hi. I see you have been adding what you feel is valuable information to various articles, but it has been reverted. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve Wikipedia, but there’s a few things you need to know.

First of all, Wikipedia is not there to right great wrongs. It is to describe without passion a large amount of notable topics. If passion for truth, justice etc. is what motivates you, you should try your luck elsewhere.

Second, about sources. You have been relying on primary sources, that is, sources closest to the subject at hand (a court transcript, an eyewitness account, a call recording, a scientific paper describing an experiment, etc.). On Wikipedia, we try instead to rely on secondary sources, rather than using primary sources directly. Those secondary sources (such as a newspaper article, a scholarly review of literature, etc.) have curated the numerous primary sources, taken a stance of what information is important / not important, likely true / likely false, and so on. Using directly primary sources means that you have to do those judgement calls yourself, which means Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) you do not incorporate your own biases about what should be used and what should not be: hopefully, an array of secondary sources is closer to "neutrality" in that respect
 * 2) you do not risk misunderstanding the context of the document. For instance, at some point in the Illiad, Aphrodite comes to help a Trojan in a duel, and Zeus comments that her place is not on the battlefield. To modern sensibilities that seems like an innocuous offhand comment, after all, Aphrodite is the goddess of love; but any decent commentary of that part will explain that it is religious propaganda. At the time of the Illiad Aphrodite was a goddess of war in some parts of Greece. The modern equivalent would be a story of the Iraq war where Muhammad rebukes Jesus and asks that he stops helping Americans because he’s a minor prophet and not the real Messiah.
 * 3) you can more easily evaluate which sources are reliable. If a random blog appeared today and claimed to leak inside documents from the White House that prove a gigantic corruption scandal, it is impossible to determine whether the leaked documents are real or fabricated. If a reputable newspaper that has been publishing decent factual information for the last 10 years with a history of good editorial process decides to run the story, it is much more credible - it indicates that that they have researched and fact-checked it. If a newspaper runs too many such stories without checking them, it will lose its reputation quickly.