User talk:Theobvioushero

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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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) 21 July 2020 02:05:23 (UTC)

Moving other editors comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As per the guidelines at WP:TPOC, please do not move my or other editors' comments on this page without their permission, as you did. While you are welcome to place your replies to individual comments directly underneath if you wish, it is easier for other editors to follow the conversation if all responses are placed at bottom, with quotes using the template if necessary. I chose to add my comments at bottom and do not wish them to be moved. Cambial foliage❧ 23:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Your recent editing history at The Family International 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.You have been reverted by multiple editors, so it is now time to discuss the issue on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

AT Nibiru cataclysm and Ganesha drinking milk miracle you removed sourced text saying it wasn't backed by the sources
This isn't acceptable and if it continues you will be blocked. Note that at the Ganesha article there was also discussion, as there should be, in the body of the article. With sources. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved this discussion to the talk pages of the relevant articles. Theobvioushero (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the message. That was probably the worst day of my life as I was told I probably have secondary cancer of the liver. On top of Parkinson's and a heart murmur. Doug Weller  talk 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Schazjmd  (talk)  16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Tip on refs
I wanted to mention this because you've made the same error at least twice. When you remove a source from an article, if it is a named reference (ref name=something), there's a good chance that it is used in multiple locations of the article. If you remove the definition, every other ref that calls that name will fail and you'll see an error in the References section. You can use preview to check how the page will appear before you publish your edits. If you've removed any sources, always use preview and check the References section to make sure you haven't broken something. Schazjmd  (talk)  17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for letting me know! Theobvioushero (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)