User talk:Raymond648

The Good Mans Words
Hi,

I'm definitely not a satanist, but I care about an encyclopedic neutral point of view. In Wikipedia articles, sentences such as "This was in fact a very immoral move that the British government had made." are unacceptably subjective regarding any "move"; describing the opinion as "fact" is incorrect.

Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Are you a moderator or a robot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond648 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm a human Wikipedia editor; click my name for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Okay, did you read my message on your talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond648 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seen and answered both questions now; feel free to ask if further questions about editing Wikipedia arise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Raymond648. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place help me on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
 * "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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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.

Also, not a policy, but don't alter quoted material to something besides the original quote. Quotes contain the exact wording, that's how they work. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the original quote. You were literally censoring scripture. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit you made to God in Christianity. Wikipedia is Not censored, information should not be removed simply because it is contradictory with some religious beliefs. dmartin969 02:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Insults by Dmartin969
Hello, I'm Dmartin969. Your recent edit(s) to the page United Nations Operation in Somalia I appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed 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 would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 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. dmartin969 02:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at God in Christianity. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Your reply is very generous and appreciative.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Canada and the United Nations. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. dmartin969 23:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Are you stalking me?

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Dmartin969 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. dmartin969 23:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hi ,

your last actions, combined with the bumpy start, seem to indicate that you are currently not here to build or maintain a neutral encyclopedia.

While I personally won't take administrative action against you, your behavior seems to justify a stern, and possibly final warning for trolling the community. It may be appropriate for any uninvolved administrator to block you from editing the next time you make an edit like one of the following:


 * Special:Diff/927353135
 * Special:Diff/927353742/927353846
 * Special:Diff/927216018
 * Special:Diff/927372067
 * Special:Diff/927366272

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated towards billions of potential readers, and at least millions of actual readers. Your edits behind the scenes may be mildly annoying, but intentionally disrupting live articles crosses a red line. If the community has to fear more similar edits coming from you, it has (and will use) effective technical measures to prevent them.

I have tried to guide you, but every human's patience is limited. If you seriously have good intentions and would like to accept this "possibly last chance" offer, you may like to have a look at The Wikipedia Adventure or the Task Center for constructive recommendations.

Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Secret Conflict (November 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Raymond648/sandbox/The Secret Conflict and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Raymond648/sandbox/The Secret Conflict, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Raymond648/sandbox/The_Secret_Conflict Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan_arndt&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Raymond648/sandbox/The_Secret_Conflict reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)