User talk:1Mark the Spark1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, 1Mark the Spark1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm B732. I noticed that in this edit to Fall of Constantinople, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. B732 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fall of Constantinople. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Idell (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Megaman en m. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Impostor syndrome have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Megaman en m (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Virgin birth of Jesus. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

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 <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, 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^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18 April 2021 17:43:12 (UTC)

References

^ I'm not saying that you do, but if...

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18 April 2021 17:43:12 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Persecution of Copts. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nome. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

problems with your edits at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities[edit]

The key words are "continuously inhabited" and "city". An oasis is not a city. Nor is a settlement, and signs of habitation are certainly not the date when a city began. If there is a new city next to an old abandoned city, we date it from when the new city was established. If a city was in ruins for centuries, ditto. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Texas Tech University, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SunDawn talk 06:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Texas Tech University. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - BLP[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been more than a week since this happened. When can I edit the page? 1Mark the Spark1 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This indefinite in the literal sense, but you will have to provide a very convincing unblock response to your gross and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies concerning living persons. If any further discussion involves repeating those violations here, I will remove talkpage access.Read WP:BLP, then read it again. This kind of thing requires extensive high-quality sourcing. Google Docs links aren't reliable sources for the sun rising in the morning, much less what you're trying to assert. Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1Mark the Spark1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block violates your blocking policy. I added information to a page, but it was reverted and I was told that, if I could add them again with reliable sources, they will be kept up. This is on my talk page. So I added the information again with the best sources I could find (as certain websites are not allowed to be citations on Wikipedia). This time, I got a warning that my edit had violated WP:BLP. My edits did not violate WP:BLP in any way, since they are not even biographical in nature. (The closest thing on that page to a rule that I violated is where it recommends that I use “alleged” if the university has denied the claim, but they haven’t denied it so I did not break that rule.) WP:BLP only mentions avoiding contentious claims about living people, not universities. On the first warning, I recieved no explanation whatsoever for how I was breaking WP:BLP. Despite this injustice, after being told not to edit the article again, I complied and went to the talk page instead to ask why the topic was being censored.

This time, I definitely did not break any Wikipedia policies; I gave no unnecessary information on the controversy and instead simply asked why it was being censored. There could not have possibly been a WP:BLP breach there. Yet once again, my edits were reverted without explanation, removed from the public archive, and my account was banned. If this over-the-top reaction is because I have broken any Wikipedia policies, not because I am documenting things you are trying to cover up, then why were my edits removed from the public archive? If you reject this appeal, you must explain this. And show me my “gross and repeated violations of Wikipedia policies concerning living persons”, since after I got my first warning I definitely broke no rules. I doubt this will work, since I am going against a tech uni after all and everyone here seems to be an expert at abusing Wikipedia’s policies (as they have misused WP:REVDEL, but I am clearly in the right here so it’s worth a try. 1Mark the Spark1 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You gravely misunderstand WP:BLP. It applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles, and applies to all types of edits, not just "biographical". The block was correct. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1Mark the Spark1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that it applies to talk pages as well as articles. But, when I edited the talk page, I certainly broke no WP:BLP rules. I simply asked why my edits were being censored, giving no unnecessary information about them. The only thing about my talk page edit that could conceivably have broken WP:BLP is the name of a person whose full name is all over the internet anyway. Admittedly, I may have broken WP:BLP before then, and received a single warning for it, but since I did not break it again after that I should not be banned for “repeated violations of Wikipedia policies concerning living persons”. Furthermore, the question still remains of why WP:REVDEL was used if this was simply a matter of guideline breaches.1Mark the Spark1 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you see nothing seriously wrong with your edits, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

1Mark the Spark1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please explain to me what was wrong with my edits, and I promise that whatever it is I will not do it again. I only remember breaking WP:BLP once, and understand why that was inappropriate, but nobody here has tried to show where I supposedly broke it a second time. It is entirely possible that I did break it the second time though, since I can no longer access the talk page edit, and if that was the case then I apologise. 1Mark the Spark1 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The edits were a clear violation of WP:BLP. The edits were indeed libelous in nature, and you did not have a WP:RS to confirm these allegations. Further more, it's clear you are here to troll further, reading your previous unblock request. Talk page access removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] I'm not saying that you do, but if...

[1]