User talk:Mar Komus

Your edits
Section headings should only have capital letters for the first word and proper nouns, so could you please correct this? [check] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments such as "for a more thorough and scholarly discussion, please see" are inappropriate, we try to avoid adding our own analysis or opinions to articles. In any case that's already used as a reference so should not be an external link. [link moved to citation location; "thorough" and "scholarly", in this case, is objective. No one would dispute that Dr. Wood's article is more thorough than the Wikipedia entry, which article covers a broader range of topics (and in more detail) relevant to this particular subject matter. Neither would anyone dispute that it is more scholarly, having numerous citations from recognized authorities, peer reviewed journals, and his own work.] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When you cite books, could you please give more exact page numbers. ["pp. 205-240" I believe that was in the footnote?] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't link more than once to a Wikipedia article. [???] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We rarely add 'Dr' before somemone's name, could you please remove this? [not sure I understand the logic in that, but done] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

These are things I wouldn't expect a new editor to know - there's quite a learning curve at times. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

[Thanks, Dougweller! Appreciate your help and input. It is valued!] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

[You might have to correct me in how to reply properly to a talk page. Another learning curve] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

[Just learned what signing is] Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My responses
Very new at this. Quite a learning curve. Thanks, Dougweller, for the input.

Followed modifications best I could.

Mar Komus (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My biggest problem when I was new was original research, I didn't realise that our sources need to discuss the subject of the article, which of course is not the case when writing an academic paper. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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, 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.

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".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15 November 2020 00:23:45 (UTC)

ARBPS
It is wise to pay special attention to WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Your recent editing history at Bryant G. Wood 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Dominion Voting Systems; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I would strongly suggest you check out the long history of discussions at Talk:Joe Biden, Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and elsewhere about this exact subject. It has been discussed to death, and there is firm consensus to describe Biden as President-elect. Please don't continue to edit war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)