User talk:Msiehta

Welcome!
Hi Msiehta! 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.

Happy editing! Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:DLWyer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You may read why it is inappropriate at User talk:IZAK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2020 (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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13 June 2020 18:47:10 (UTC)

Preaching on Wikipedia
I remember you doing it at my own talk page and I personally did not mind it much, but you also seem to be doing it at other random editor's, so I wanted to remind you of WP:NOTSOAP, WP:NOTSOCIAL and WP:HERE (the WP:FREESPEECH essay is also informative about editing rights) and welcome you to edit articles instead (WP:BOLD)... And you're still welcome to post at my page if it's in relation to Wikipedia editing. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 23:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
I opened a discussion at WP:BLPN concerning your edit at Seth Andrews ☆ Bri (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Biographies of living people
The following is an important message that you have not received yet but that is for any editor editing in the area and is renewable every 12 months:

It's also important to be aware of the policy in relation to BLP articles. Material should be supported by a source (WP:CITE) and the sources that can be used for biographies are limited (WP:BLPRS). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 22:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

September 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC) You've been warned before not to use Wikipedia to preach. Now you seem to be targeting a non-binary editor with your preaching, to harass them for being non-binary. This is doubly unacceptable, so I have blocked you indefinitely. For what it's worth, Bereshit Rabba 8:1 interprets that verse the exact opposite way that you are interpreting it, not that that has a bearing on this block. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no personal attacks in speaking the truth to individuals. I request that I be unblocked right away. Msiehta (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. You will not be unblocked if you believe that to be true.-- Ponyo bons mots 00:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)