User talk:Trsarg

June 2024
Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you removed topically relevant content from Sia (god). However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Lone-078, the wikipedia article brings modified infomraiton compared to referenced source. In the The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, George Hart ISBN 0-415-34495-6 source (can see here: [Https://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/relig/egipt/egyptgods.pdf https://www.obinfonet.ro/docs/relig/egipt/egyptgods.pdf] page 168) it's only mentioned
 * while the Sia_(god) article wrongly claims:
 * Please mention the reference where it's said that Antum was created Sia from cutting his own penis. Otherwise it's a a subjective assumption and let's reference the "Egyptian Gods and Goddesses" in a precise way. Trsarg (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain why first you censored a claim and its reliable source because it is "offensive", and now you reintroduce the very same source you removed since it says something similar to the original claim albeit misinterpreted, by copying the text from the source verbatim, violating its copyright. Lone-078 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know people who "offended" due to the original statement and claimed it's not true. After a deeper research (based on your feedbadk) I found the source and see that the original statement is partially true, although presents subjective interpretation. Thank for noting about the copyright statements. Please feel free to adjust/re-word text (or I can do it) to comply with the Wikipedia policy. Please don't bring back the subjective assumption in the original paragraph unless we have a valid reference for that. Trsarg (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain why first you censored a claim and its reliable source because it is "offensive", and now you reintroduce the very same source you removed since it says something similar to the original claim albeit misinterpreted, by copying the text from the source verbatim, violating its copyright. Lone-078 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know people who "offended" due to the original statement and claimed it's not true. After a deeper research (based on your feedbadk) I found the source and see that the original statement is partially true, although presents subjective interpretation. Thank for noting about the copyright statements. Please feel free to adjust/re-word text (or I can do it) to comply with the Wikipedia policy. Please don't bring back the subjective assumption in the original paragraph unless we have a valid reference for that. Trsarg (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)