User talk:Pediainsight

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash;ScouterSig 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Danorton (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses project
I have started a discussion regarding the content wikipedia has regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Seeing that you are listed as a member of that project, I would appreciate any responses to the material there you would like to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk  18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Suicide. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Hallo

I've seen you've placed repeatedly a blurred image of an unidentified species of sea star [http://en.wikipedia.org)


 * I have removed the blurred image from sea star after you put it back again. Please don't put it back without discussing it at Talk:sea star first. William Avery (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you insist on showing us your image again . The purpose of English Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopaedia in English, not to provide you space for uninformative images, even if you consider them beautiful. We have many images of chess pieces on their boar

behavioural evidence to pass the duck test. If this happens again I will file a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. William Avery (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC) same IP range. William Avery (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) ease understand that I often place images (mine and others') on articles to improve 'em. Sometimes they're photos I've taken

Sea star
As already explained above by User:Javierme, the caption says the photo is of a madreporite, which must be covered by an article on sea stars. Do not remove this illustration of the madreporite unless you can find a better one. William Avery (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Governing Body members
You have restored pages about a few JW Governing Body members who have little encyclopedic notability. These people have not significantly impacted the teachings of JWs, and the information in their articles is lifted out of JW life-story articles that do not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. If you want to retain those articles, please indicate how where those individuals are discussed in reliable third-party sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bicycle do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain specifically what are those points. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to this please stop adding any links from the Watchtower's website to unrelated articles. They are not considered a reliable source on any subject but themselves. Please review WP:RS for more information. Monotonehell 12:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say you're wrong. --Pediainsight (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Bicycle do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Child sexual abuse, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content August 2010
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jehovah's Witnesses, you may be blocked from editing. BlackCab (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Masturbation, you may be blocked from editing. Your opinion of what "god's word" says does not belong in this encyclopedia, no matter how many others you may think might share your opinion. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit is plainly a direct lift of material from the November 1, 2011 Watchtower magazine, which is prohibited under Wikipedia policies. BlackCab (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chime in, in a more general manner. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide religious context or instruction on any given topic. Unless the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are directly relevant to the topic of masturbation on the whole, it doesn't belong in the article, even if the church has teachings directly pertaining to it. The article subject is relevant to the church, but the church isn't relevant to the subject. See how that works? -- King Öomie 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2009
In October 2009 you inserted unreliably sourced material into Pizza and violated the copyright of Watchtower here. Suicide here. Copyright violation is not on. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
This is your only warning; if you make controversial edits Wikipedia again, as you did at Homeopathy, without prior discussion on the talk page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Note, The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing that page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.'' Joja  lozzo  22:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Homeopathy seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. McSly (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:McSly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NOTE: Try to keep things simple and stop when you are told to, yeah? Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Show me again the politics about to talk on user's pages. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Israel, you may be blocked from editing. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲 水 07:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the persecution and for the block
Thanks for the persecution and for the block. --Pediainsight (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah Silences Reproach of His People. When the Israelites engaged in false worship or in unrighteous practices, they reproached Jehovah God, because they made the worship of Jehovah appear no better than that of the nations around them. (Isa 65:7) For their unfaithfulness God permitted calamity to befall them, causing them to become an object of reproach among the nations. (Eze 5:14, 15) Not appreciating that the judgment was from God, other nations attributed it to his inability to save Israel, so additional reproach was brought upon Jehovah. Therefore, in restoring the Israelites on the basis of their repentance, Jehovah cleared his name of such reproach.—Eze 36:15, 20, 21, 30-36. Source

Copying content from other sources
Please hear this advice: Contributions that are primarily quotations are inappropriate and rarely improve the project. There are many ways to contribute and different roles for people with different skills. Those who find it difficult to articulate concepts and facts in their own words can significantly advance the project by correcting errors or adding (public domain) images rather than contributing new textual content. Please consider working with us in some way other than copying text from other sources. Thank you. Joja lozzo  01:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Is right or not to take a phrase from other encyclopedia and then, introduce it here, in wikipedia? --Pediainsight (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You probably need to go back and read Your first article and then take a close look at Copy-paste. Those two pages spell out the problem with just lifting copy from somewhere and inserting it in an article. It notes: "Always write the articles in your own words ... as a general rule, do not copy and paste text from other sources." The examples cited by Jeffro in the thread above highlight your egregious use of copy-pasting. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 08:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your edit to Michael Gorbachev (indicated in previous section) is entirely inappropriate. But apart from that&mdash;and aside from your improper citation of material as indicated in the previous section&mdash;simply quoting an encyclopedia with no supporting prose generally amounts to a useless soundbite with no real context, and does nothing to improve the article. Relevant quotes may be used to support other material in an article, but are not a substitute for proper content.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is inappropriate and unhelpful. If you persist in making unhelpful contributions rather than helpful ones such as correcting grammatical mistakes or spelling errors, you may eventually be blocked from editing. Joja  lozzo  15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are continuing to plagiarise sources, most recently at Homeopathy. You have already been warned repeatedly about this. If you do it again, you will be reported.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

December 2014
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reify-tech (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have the source, this is the source:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2498272/technology-law-regulation/mit-researchers-can-see-through-walls-using--wi-vi-.html
 * It's an isolated technical article. If we linked every innovation that MIT came up with, the links section would dominate the article. Wi-Vi isn't sufficiently notable at this time.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower
I've undone you edits because some of the material does not belong where you put it, and the bit from The Watchtower is both laughably simplistic and also from a source that cannot be taken seriously on an engineering matter. You are close to edit warring on this: please desist.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is serious and you know it. Please return the edition to the article or introduce the content in other part of the article. In what part do you think can be the information? --Pediainsight (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been advised previously that publications of the Watch Tower Society&mdash;religious publications&mdash;do not qualify as reliable sources for general-interest subjects. Additionally, the only element of your edits at Eiffel Tower that was not already present in the article was The Watchtowers assertion that construction was based on a thighbone, with no credible source for the claim. Also, you're continuing to add single disjunct statements instead of creating or improving valid prose.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are right, the sources are serious for articles about religious matters or other matters. This sources do not like to some atheistic people or disfelloshiped people from the JW organization, but other people, a lot of people, who really are not JW members or JW people, likes this sort of sources or these sort of sources. Wikipedia and its politics do no explain this sources are wrong, because they know are right. --Pediainsight (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The femur is principally compression member, with tension loads taken by the musculature. The ironwork of the Eiffel Tower is loaded in both compression and tension. Don't make edits other than grammatical ones in areas of which you are ignorant.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jerusalem. The bible is not a reliable source for non-biblical topics. Joja  lozzo  14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem is a city with a special relation with the Bible, very related with the Bible. Only the Bible can be or is a valid source --Pediainsight (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and does not report unprovable theological opinions from religious texts as if they are facts. (And your edit was an uncited copyright violation from Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2, page 48.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read about and be sure you fully understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sources before you add anything more to this project. If you still have questions please ask them at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Otherwise you risk losing your editorial privileges. Joja  lozzo  14:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See this article please, and think, is the Bible a valid source for the content or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah

See this othe article about this other city, Babylon, is the Bible here a source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_(New_Testament)
 * Isaiah and Babylon (New Testament) are articles about topics that are specifically and only related to the Bible. You should note that Babylon is a separate article and does not contain any theological claims. Your attempted comparison is invalid. (As Babylon (New Testament) is a POV fork, I have nominated it for deletion.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to argue with you or explain this stuff. You've been a Wikipedia editor since 2007. You need to figure out how Wikipedia sources work by reading the policy pages. Then please take your questions to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (And please sign your talk pages posts with " ~ " and consider using indents, i.e. colons, to structure talk page discussions.) Joja  lozzo  03:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There are verses of the Bible in this non exclusive biblical article, yes or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Read this other article, please:

According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, the acacia tree may be the “burning bush” (Exodus 3:2) which Moses encountered in the desert.[22] Also, when God gave Moses the instructions for building the Tabernacle, he said to "make an ark" and "a table of acacia wood" (Exodus 25:10 & 23, Revised Standard Version). Also, in the Christian tradition, Christ's crown of thorns is thought to have been woven from acacia.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * See please, this other article:

The almond is highly revered in some cultures. The tree originated in the Middle East,[60] and is mentioned numerous times in the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, the almond was a symbol of watchfulness and promise due to its early flowering. In the Bible the almond is mentioned ten times, beginning with Book of Genesis 43:11, where it is described as "among the best of fruits". In Numbers 17 Levi is chosen from the other tribes of Israel by Aaron's rod, which brought forth almond flowers. According to tradition, the rod of Aaron bore sweet almonds on one side and bitter on the other; if the Israelites followed the Lord, the sweet almonds would be ripe and edible, but if they were to forsake the path of the Lord, the bitter almonds would predominate. The almond blossom supplied a model for the menorah which stood in the Holy Temple, "Three cups, shaped like almond blossoms, were on one branch, with a knob and a flower; and three cups, shaped like almond blossoms, were on the other...on the candlestick itself were four cups, shaped like almond blossoms, with its knobs and flowers" (Exodus 25:33–34; 37:19–20). Similarly, Christian symbolism often uses almond branches as a symbol of the Virgin Birth of Jesus; paintings often include almonds encircling the baby Jesus and as a symbol of Mary. The word "Luz", which appears in Genesis 30:37, is sometimes translated as "hazel", may actually be derived from the Aramaic name for almond (Luz), and is translated as such in some Bible versions such as the NIV.[61] The Arabic name for almond is "laoz". In some parts of the Levant it is pronounced "loz", which is very close to its Aramaic origin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond

--Pediainsight (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are unable to distinguish how these examples are different from your own use of the bible as a source, then I urge you to stop contributing content to Wikipedia and turn your efforts to correcting grammar and other errors. Your continued arguments against Wikipedia policy on reliable sources either a) verifies your difficulties in comprehending the structure that guides the editorial process here or b) exposes your personal agenda as more important to you than improving Wikipedia within its established guidelines. Joja  lozzo  23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo, I have the distinct impression that Pediainsight does not understand the distinction. To him, 'the Bible' (as well as literature produced by his favoured religious publishing company) is an inerrant and authoritative source of material on any subject. He apparently does not understand the difference between using the Bible as a literary source from the Near East and as a source of theological claims. Also, based on his previous comments at Talk pages, I think your recommendation that he concentrate on correcting grammatical errors would also be unwise, as it appears that English is not his first language.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, unless and until this editor figures out how sources work here he/she should not be adding content to the project. I don't have time to work with him/her on this and I don't get a sense of willingness to work with us on her/his part. There are plenty of excellent resources available for learning about sourcing policy. If language competence is also an issue then I think that should be handled separately. I will be monitoring contributions for proper sourcing but have no interest in further discussion on this. Joja  lozzo  03:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The translations of the Bible are not important, is the same one or other Bible or the translation, every Bible or translation can be a right source. --Pediainsight (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about any particular translation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy
There is a big difference between history of homeopathy and history of Hahnemann, The material you added MIGHT belong in the article on Hahnemann, but not in the article on homeopathy. Ask on the talk page, first, and don't ever threaten to "add it back if you don't". That makes you sound like a troll. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, using your User page to host "your preferred version of disputed content" about homeopathy is a violation of WP:UP.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop posting content which is primarily quotation of other documents as you just did at Homeopathy. We have made this request several times here in the last few weeks yet you continue in this activity despite repeated explanations of it's inappropriateness. If you persist in this it can lead to loss of your editorial privileges. Joja lozzo  05:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The content is talking about the history of homeopathy, not the history of Hahnemann. I am going to introduce some aspects about the history of homeopathy. --Pediainsight (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I advise against it. That article is the result of extensive argumentation between warring parties and any edit not discussed on Talk is likely to be reverted. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am trying to discuss this points in the discussion. Regards. --Pediainsight (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the homeopathy topic, Pediainsight. You may be wondering about the level of hostility you're receiving on what was really a small (but helpful) addition to the article, but if you spend any amount of time on the topic at all, you will understand that this is normal.  Unfortunately, WP's administration currently supports this type of behavior related to this particular article. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The other editors have not been particularly hostile, especially in view of the fact that the text provided by Pediainsight is an unattributed copyright violation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not hostile, Jeffro77? How about templating a regular (this account has been around since 2007), threatening a block, and calling him a troll.  What is your definition of hostile?  If the homeopathy regulars don't consider their behavior in this situation to be very hostile, then something is really wrong with the this topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor has been around for 7 years and still cannot grasp concepts about proper sourcing, plagiarism and neutral point of view. Clearly something is indeed very wrong.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Cla68, Wikipedia and some administrators, do not understand very much the homeopathy, but the content introduced by me about Napoleon is right, referenced, and for the interest of the people. --Pediainsight (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please cease your misuse of sources regarding homeopathy. In this edit, you claimed that the Swiss Medical Weekly endorses homeopathy. However, that report actually reviews a separate report that endorsed homeopathy, and concluded that the other report "is scientifically, logically and ethically flawed". The Swiss Medical Weekly also added that the other report "proves that homeopaths are willing to distort evidence in order to support their beliefs". It appears that you are just as willing to misrepresent sources in favour of homeopathy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Language difficulties?
Hi, Pediainsight. It's Jojalozzo again. Given your history with this project, I am wondering whether English is your first language or not and I think it would help us all if we knew the answer to that. Is it? Joja lozzo  03:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep to modest contributions
Hi Pediainsight. I noticed you had stopped trying to post significant article content for a few weeks since I asked about your English language skills. I think that was a smart thing to do. However, I see you have gotten yourself re-involved in the Homeopathy article by posting erroneous information and misusing sources. That is not so good. I strongly recommend you stick to minor edits and stay clear of any significant content contributions because you do not seem to have sufficient understanding of policy, guidelines or English language constructions. Please keep your contributions minor and modest. Cheers. Jojalozzo (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that whilst Pediainsight's biased contributions on Wikipedia have diminished, his edits under the username Wiki Wisdom have gone relatively unchecked at WikiQuote for quite some time, where almost all of his edits assign undue weight to quotes appearing in Watch Tower Society literature, particularly their minor translation of the Bible. Secondary to those actions, Pediainsight's most frequent behaviour on Wikipedia has been to link Wikipedia articles to the pages he has modified on WikiQuote. This still constitutes improper promotion of his preferred religious publisher.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, I'm McSly. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. McSly (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this source? Can I use it?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Alert about editing Homeopathy
Jojalozzo (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this source? Can I use it?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/11/world-homeopathy-awareness-week-homeopathic-preparations

--Pediainsight (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You could use that site, so long as you don't try to misrepresent it like the other Swiss article. But you probably don't want to. The article you have cited above says "raising awareness of homeopathy is the quickest way to dispel any belief in it". The source you have cited does not support homeopathy. The point of the article is that the more people learn about homeopathy, the less people will believe it.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Homeopathy. Failing to do so is considered harassment, which is also disruptive behavior against editors. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ignaz Brüll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piano duo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wisdom
Hi, I've just removed some information that you recently added to the Wisdom article. If you feel that this information should be included, please feel free to discuss the reasons on the article Talk page, Talk:Wisdom, per the WP:BRD process. My concern is that the text contains information which is contentious, and that we should have supporting sources for it, per WP:V & WP:RS. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was lifted, once again, from a Watchtower Society publication used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Pediainsight has previously been warned about this behavior. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 00:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Godly devotion


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Godly devotion requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been warned previously about copyright violations and copy-and-pasting from uncited sources. Additionally, the content does not represent a mainstream view.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)