User talk:Bigot 27

Bigot 27, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Bigot 27! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Your addition to Yahweh has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: Copyright of whom?! I was quoting the translation from the sources included in the book of Exodus at the beginning ! Show me where I have violated the copyrights ! Bigot 27 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You copypasted not just the translation, but also the explanation given from the source you provided. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: What I copied is the direct translation. The last sentence is just an explanation of the word YHWH as He is ! you claim that I violated the copyrights by using one sentence ! write me the parts where I copied directly ! Bigot 27 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it could be awkward for Moses to go to the Israelites and Pharaoh and say, “I am has sent me.” So, in Ex. 3:15 God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.”" Is copyrighted text. Like I said, you copypasted everything directly from the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2017 (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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Yahweh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: I made the main edits THEN others reverted my edits without any legitimate explanation ! So keep your threats for yourself, Darkness ! Bigot 27 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When editwarring cases are brought to us we don't take into account reasons for the reverts other than WP:VANDALISM as defined there (your accusation of vandalism was simply wrong) and WP:BLP violations, we normally just count the reverts. You weren't being threatened, you were being advised. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Yahweh. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Doug said, it's being threatening just advised, you are on WP:3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for copying text from other articles[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix these problems before you continue editing as this isn't optional. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Can I download a picture from the internet like a team logo, modify it, then upload it here ?!

You need to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with a specific image to discuss with a link to it. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not composers such as Mozart or Chopin have an infobox ? Thanks in advance ! Bigot 27 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are very contentious. See User:Doug Weller for my views. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers whose members do not like using them, read Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. Before my time on the Arbitration Committee there was a case involving infoboxes, take a look at the comments made by Ched at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Statement by Ched. In other words, it would be a bad idea to try to add one for at least classical commposers. If an article has been around for a long time without an infobox, it's always best to read the talk page and archives if any, and then ask. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything about the text you copied from one article to another. I don't have time to fix it so I may just have to roll your edits back as copyright violations. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Which edits are talking about? and how to add that tag in the edit summary if I do not add more edits ? Bigot 27 (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put a note on the talk page with a link to the article(s) you copied the text from. Surely you know if you've copied text from other articles? It looks to me that you've copied text about massacres. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: OK ! done ! Bigot 27 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Bigot 27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Ponyo: I have been blocked indefinitely for no reason other than being a sock puppet ! You claim that I misuse different accounts and evade blocks ! and I can tell you that I have a thousand IPs and I can create a thousand accounts ... How about that ?! you block me as a person regardless of my contributions ! I kindly ask to unblock me as I do not disrupt articles but on the contrary, I positively contribute here ! you would claim that I evade previous blocks and it seems that issues are getting personal here ! As I said I can use different IPs so you cant accuse me of being a sock puppet ! I hope that you lift the ban as I only edit articles here and many apologizes for my previous hostility, but I can also blame that admin for blocking my main account as I used another account related to a new email at that time, and since then you blame for evading ! I propose two solutions: you either unblock this account and judge me on my act here regardless of the alleged evading or you bring back my original account in which you blocked for unclear reasons ! I genuinely want to overcome this dilemma once and for all, otherwise you know that I can create a new account over and over and over and over and over again ! So I am looking forward to settle this issue so I can edit without this unnecessary subjective censorship which started by false accusations from the very beginning ! Bigot 27 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:41, 7 September 2017 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigot 27, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sjö (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigot 27, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sjö (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigot 27, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sjö (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]