User talk:Mayo890

Welcome
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.

Some other site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * "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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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".

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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)
 * 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.

March 2022
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)


 * I did not make any personal attacks. The user was removing content that was properly cited. I think it is fair to call that a narrative. There should be some rules on how content cannot be removed when it is properly cited if Wikipedia wants to maintain any credibility. Don't you agree that the user was engaged in disruptive editing that I warned them against three times? This is actually very common on Wikipedia which I see as very discouraging for anybody who wants to contribute that someone without any citation can reverse the narrative to what they want to believe. I would like to hear from you on that since that will be helpful for me to understand how Wikipedia really works. Thanks! Mayo890 (talk) 12:17, 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)
 * None of the sources used in the entire article are reliable by this token. Also, I mentioned three sources that it is a Middle Eastern dish while 0 sources mention that it is Moroccan. Does this sound more reliable to you? It is a narrative that is not based in facts. That is true not an attack on anybody. Mayo890 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that rather than challenge what is unsourced, you changed the lead to fit the unreliable sources that you introduced. This I'm afraid is unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help you "understand how Wikipedia really works", Mayo890. Doug Weller is probably busy, but I am also an administrator. This edit of yours contradicts not only the source, but also the whole paragraph. If you don't know what "consensus" means on Wikipedia, you are probably not the best person to warn and attack an opponent, as here. Posting on Roxy's page might instead have been a good opportunity to ask them what consensus means. It would definitely have been better than using a template at random — what do his edits have to do with 'changing genres'? Nothing. You can also look up the information page Consensus. Your aggressive edit summaries, calling the other editor's reverts "vandalism" and "indoctrination", are quite inappropriate also. (Your defense above that it was all right to call them a "narrative" is absurd - that was one of the few neutral words you used, in strong opposition to "vandalism" and "indoctrination".) Please note that their edit summaries don't address you so rudely. Wikipedia is not a battleground. M.Bitton is correct about your poor sourcing. Please look up the links I have provided. Hope this helps. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC).
 * You are the one who is clearly making a personal attack on me right now. I am not the one who is war editing. Indoctrination is a word I used to describe the enforcement of ideas without facts that this whole situation is an example of. I did not say I need a dictionary definition of consensus but no one person can decide what consensus is or is not. I did not call her/his particular edit vandalism. This was a general comment not qualified by any pronouns. You are clearly making a personal attack on me right now by calling me rude. This is not acceptable and you are in no position to do so. Also, you are not okay with my "poor sourcing" and okay with having no source at all. The one source mentioned in the introduction only says that the dish is from North Africa. No source says it is from Morocco except hearsay but apparently that sounds reliable to you. This is an example of a very biased, personal attack rather than actual concern for the truth/consensus. Clearly, when one person disagrees that does not deny consensus. I did provide 3 sources and if you were making any preference based on reliability, 3 unreliable sources is better that no sources at all. Please refrain from addressing me personally and comment on how that user has actually reverted to their version again without any sourcing if this is really about reliability. Mayo890 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am blocked because of another user

 * And no reason for blocking either if the person who initiated the problem is still not blocked and did not even receive a warning. I'm surprised you made a decision in less than a minute. Mayo890 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you aren't going to be unblocked because another user isn't blocked. Block appeals are about how you acknowledge what led to your block and that you will not repeat it, or how the reasoning for your block was in error. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason for the block if Wikipedia allows you to reverse edits when you think the information is not accurate. I provided accurate citation in contrast to a claim with no citation at all and this does not seem to factor into the decision. The other person reversed the edits 3 times simply because they did not like what I wrote, without being able to provide a counterclaim or other sources that is not hearsay. Administrators do not seem to care about whether sources are used or not. I genuinely do not care to contribute anything to Wikipedia because there seems to be only a certain narrative allowed and that makes it not only unreliable but also biased. I have zero interest in being unblocked to engage in wasteful edits that can simply be reversed by a group of disruptive editors who clearly collaborate together and not have the situation reviewed by administrators. I just wanted this to be on the record that this the situation with Wikipedia. Mayo890 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you will need to provide diffs in your unblock that proves so. I cannot stress enough that we aren't interested in whether another user was the cause of whatever reason for the block is listed. If you believe it is without cause, then you must indicate why that is so. I'm not the one you'll need to convince, but it is highly unlikely you will be unblocked if you cannot assume good faith, as you have demonstrated by accusing that Wikipedia's administrators are so biased. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 03:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)