Wikiprediger
Hello, Wikiprediger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this welcome message! Wikiprediger (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
Edit warring at several articles about Freemasonry
editPlease stop. When another editor reverts an edit you make, go to the article’s talk page and DISCUSS the matter. Edit warring (repeatedly returning the article to your preferred version) can eventually get you blocked (or even outright banned) from editing Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this information. I will discuss it first next time. Wikiprediger (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
edit
Hello, I'm SarekOfVulcan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Freemasonry that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Claiming that an editor is working at the behest of other "masters" is not generally considered a good idea. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I only answered the humor shown to me with humor. I think there is no need to remove it. But if you need to, i can post similar ironic things like that anytime elsewhere in the internet. It's in the wayback machine, too - and i have a screenshot. Maybe i present it then somewhere so that people can discuss and judge it themselves.Is it really that big problem to you? I can't understand. Wikiprediger (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Wikiprediger! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Recreating content that was removed by a user (even if slightly different) is considered a partial revert, putting you over WP:3RR. I would strongly suggest you self revert.. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages - yes, and why haven't you done that first? i asked you multiple times to describe your problems detailed - instead of just deleting everything you do not like. I had rewritten this content especially to fit in the article one day before - and you just deleted it without any discussion before? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Open Parliamentary License
editPer https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/, this is not considered a free license for our purposes. (See also Template:Non-free Parliamentary copyright.) Actually, I'm not sure now. Reading more closely, it may be suitable. I'll do some more research. That said, though....
In addition, copying even free content in the manner that you did at Operation Countryman is frowned on. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism for guidelines on how to use other people's content properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Further research turns up Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_copyright. Seems ok. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll write a better short summary soon, my english isn't very good. Wikiprediger (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI discussion
editI think you're including way too much of that speech, and doing it in an inappropriate manner, so I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing. -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think you exclude too much of that speach. you were contra-productive multiple times - then just improving the article with this new informations. i think these are very important informations. maybe you are biased and you have no neutral pov. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 02:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)- As a result of this discussion, you are indefinitely blocked from editing. Should you wish to pursue an unblock, it will need to be a convincing case made to the community to show why the disruption will not recur. Star Mississippi 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikiprediger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My early edits on some articles were discussed a lot. I was not familiar with some details of wikipedia's rules and had no idea that I was dealing with articles with such controversial topics. So I couldn't understand why so many reversions were carried out without prior discussion. I voluntarily refrained from making any further changes on many articles where i wanted to add a more neutral view, and explained that I would write my own neutral and critical article on the subject of freemasonry. My last and only edit since a week was on the article Operation Countryman because I had a complete new source. As always it was reversed without any discussion. But it was a completely new source i found, and it refers to a source that is already written about in the article, the speech Dale Campbell-Savours made in parliament:
Dale Campbell-Savours said that "over 250 police officers were forced to resign and many faced criminal charges after investigations revealed that police membership of particular Masonic lodges formed the nucleus of a criminal conspiracy."[1]
In this speech (see source) he also refers to the book published by Metropolitan Police and New Scotland Yard, written by Sir Kenneth Newman. In this book it is mentioned why there are such problems with freemasons in the police. I think that is an important information related to this article. My first edit on this article was to add more details about the speech of Dale Campbell-Savours, of which the source was already long time linked. I just read the complete source and found that remarkable. It was reversed by claiming that this speech had nothing to do with the case, while at the same time leaving the source linked in the article and the sentence above referring to it. For me there was the question does the source have any relevance, yes or no? I understood that a speech in parliament alone is not enough as a source, as it often only reflects a personal opinion (it was told me this way). So I looked for the book that part of the speech refers to and added it. I don't see anything objectionable in that. We could have discussed that, or why this source is even in the text if it supposedly has nothing to do with the case. That is a clear contradiction - and should be clarified if necessary before someone is completely excluded.
Because of this i saw no problem in adding a few lines, taken from that book - please read it yourself:
In the book The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour, which was also published as a guide for police officers by the Metropolitan Police in 1985 and which Dale Campbell-Savours referred to in his speech, it is emphasized that passages of the content should not be understood as a fundamental criticism of Freemasonry. Nevertheless, the conflict is described that a police officer who is also a freemason must abide by the oath to preserve masonic secrets, including those how he reveals himself to other freemasons secretly without outsiders being able to recognize it. The text suggests that the loyalty of a masonic policeman may be to other freemasons first. The book therefore recommends that freemasons who are also policemen should reflect from time to time on whether they really want to remain freemasons [2]
I don't think I can be blamed for adding a reputable source that complements an already existing source. In my opinion, what is happening here is a bit too much punishment and persecution - because I always explain my changes in detail, add sources, take part in discussions, etc. You can't expect me to know everything perfectly and always see things the same way as others do. But to prohibit me from making proper changes that can easily be reversed and to give me a complete ban, in my opinion, going way too far. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This isn't even worth bringing to the community for discussion. You don't seem to think that you did anything wrong at all, so there are no grounds for the community to even consider removing the block. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
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.
Wikiprediger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
However, this time I had a completely new source - and for me it meant that I could at least add it. After the revert, I would have asked on the discussion page why - but not reverted back (i wouldn't have startet an edit-war). But what is expected of me now is something superhuman, namely that I have to be sure before making a change whether my edit is 100% safe - otherwise I will be punished. If someone could do that, there would be no discussion pages on Wikipedia at all.
I explained the reasons for my only edit since over a week. There is a significant contradiction in the article Operation Countryman. The source from which I was forbidden to add further details, but was already recited and available in the article, because it is just a speech and maybe a personal opinion. I have accepted this contradiction, too. Because of that i searched for a better source, a book published by authorities which was mentioned in that speech. But i could not foresee, that that wouldn't be good either. I could have asked in a discussion about this contradiction and why this isn't an important information from a reliable source - but i got blocked before i could do that.
So how am I supposed to learn why someone is allowed to refer to a source and that it belongs to the article, but not if I do that - because it is only a speech and therefore a personal opinion. If I then back up these personal statements with a book from public authorities that is mentioned, then that is not right either. I think that needs clarification, not a ban.
Anyone who is relatively new in seemingly very controversial topics would be overwhelmed by such a contradiction. You can't expect to understand it immediately - but i would like to understand and ask this question on the discussions page.
I think there would be no reason for an indefinite ban anymore, as I no longer plan to add anything to a controversial topic without asking first. I have also shown that I can stay away from it for a long time and only wanted to add something once with a special new reason - and didn't just carry on as before. I didn't revertet anything, didn't started an edit-war, or something like that. I just added a one reliable source. I would appreciate it if the ban was limited to 2 weeks or 1 month so that I then can continue working on my own articles. Thank you.Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Thank you for your response. I have already learned a lot, otherwise I would have made further edits or reverts all week long. But I didn't. So now I know that if someone reverts something with a reason, I first have to start a discussion on the article discussion page and consider other opinions. As a result, I had accepted that my requests for changes in the articles could not be taken into account because of wikipedia rules. However, this time I had a completely new source - and for me it meant that I could at least add it. After the revert, I would have asked on the discussion page why - but not reverted back (i wouldn't have startet an edit-war). But what is expected of me now is something superhuman, namely that I have to be sure before making a change whether my edit is 100% safe - otherwise I will be punished. If someone could do that, there would be no discussion pages on Wikipedia at all. I explained the reasons for my only edit since over a week. There is a significant contradiction in the article [[Operation Countryman]]. The source from which I was forbidden to add further details, but was already recited and available in the article, because it is just a speech and maybe a personal opinion. I have accepted this contradiction, too. Because of that i searched for a better source, a book published by authorities which was mentioned in that speech. But i could not foresee, that that wouldn't be good either. I could have asked in a discussion about this contradiction and why this isn't an important information from a reliable source - but i got blocked before i could do that. So how am I supposed to learn why someone is allowed to refer to a source and that it belongs to the article, but not if I do that - because it is only a speech and therefore a personal opinion. If I then back up these personal statements with a book from public authorities that is mentioned, then that is not right either. I think that needs clarification, not a ban. Anyone who is relatively new in seemingly very controversial topics would be overwhelmed by such a contradiction. You can't expect to understand it immediately - but i would like to understand and ask this question on the discussions page. I think there would be no reason for an indefinite ban anymore, as I no longer plan to add anything to a controversial topic without asking first. I have also shown that I can stay away from it for a long time and only wanted to add something once with a special new reason - and didn't just carry on as before. I didn't revertet anything, didn't started an edit-war, or something like that. I just added a one reliable source. I would appreciate it if the ban was limited to 2 weeks or 1 month so that I then can continue working on my own articles. Thank you. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Thank you for your response. I have already learned a lot, otherwise I would have made further edits or reverts all week long. But I didn't. So now I know that if someone reverts something with a reason, I first have to start a discussion on the article discussion page and consider other opinions. As a result, I had accepted that my requests for changes in the articles could not be taken into account because of wikipedia rules. However, this time I had a completely new source - and for me it meant that I could at least add it. After the revert, I would have asked on the discussion page why - but not reverted back (i wouldn't have startet an edit-war). But what is expected of me now is something superhuman, namely that I have to be sure before making a change whether my edit is 100% safe - otherwise I will be punished. If someone could do that, there would be no discussion pages on Wikipedia at all. I explained the reasons for my only edit since over a week. There is a significant contradiction in the article [[Operation Countryman]]. The source from which I was forbidden to add further details, but was already recited and available in the article, because it is just a speech and maybe a personal opinion. I have accepted this contradiction, too. Because of that i searched for a better source, a book published by authorities which was mentioned in that speech. But i could not foresee, that that wouldn't be good either. I could have asked in a discussion about this contradiction and why this isn't an important information from a reliable source - but i got blocked before i could do that. So how am I supposed to learn why someone is allowed to refer to a source and that it belongs to the article, but not if I do that - because it is only a speech and therefore a personal opinion. If I then back up these personal statements with a book from public authorities that is mentioned, then that is not right either. I think that needs clarification, not a ban. Anyone who is relatively new in seemingly very controversial topics would be overwhelmed by such a contradiction. You can't expect to understand it immediately - but i would like to understand and ask this question on the discussions page. I think there would be no reason for an indefinite ban anymore, as I no longer plan to add anything to a controversial topic without asking first. I have also shown that I can stay away from it for a long time and only wanted to add something once with a special new reason - and didn't just carry on as before. I didn't revertet anything, didn't started an edit-war, or something like that. I just added a one reliable source. I would appreciate it if the ban was limited to 2 weeks or 1 month so that I then can continue working on my own articles. Thank you. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Thank you for your response. I have already learned a lot, otherwise I would have made further edits or reverts all week long. But I didn't. So now I know that if someone reverts something with a reason, I first have to start a discussion on the article discussion page and consider other opinions. As a result, I had accepted that my requests for changes in the articles could not be taken into account because of wikipedia rules. However, this time I had a completely new source - and for me it meant that I could at least add it. After the revert, I would have asked on the discussion page why - but not reverted back (i wouldn't have startet an edit-war). But what is expected of me now is something superhuman, namely that I have to be sure before making a change whether my edit is 100% safe - otherwise I will be punished. If someone could do that, there would be no discussion pages on Wikipedia at all. I explained the reasons for my only edit since over a week. There is a significant contradiction in the article [[Operation Countryman]]. The source from which I was forbidden to add further details, but was already recited and available in the article, because it is just a speech and maybe a personal opinion. I have accepted this contradiction, too. Because of that i searched for a better source, a book published by authorities which was mentioned in that speech. But i could not foresee, that that wouldn't be good either. I could have asked in a discussion about this contradiction and why this isn't an important information from a reliable source - but i got blocked before i could do that. So how am I supposed to learn why someone is allowed to refer to a source and that it belongs to the article, but not if I do that - because it is only a speech and therefore a personal opinion. If I then back up these personal statements with a book from public authorities that is mentioned, then that is not right either. I think that needs clarification, not a ban. Anyone who is relatively new in seemingly very controversial topics would be overwhelmed by such a contradiction. You can't expect to understand it immediately - but i would like to understand and ask this question on the discussions page. I think there would be no reason for an indefinite ban anymore, as I no longer plan to add anything to a controversial topic without asking first. I have also shown that I can stay away from it for a long time and only wanted to add something once with a special new reason - and didn't just carry on as before. I didn't revertet anything, didn't started an edit-war, or something like that. I just added a one reliable source. I would appreciate it if the ban was limited to 2 weeks or 1 month so that I then can continue working on my own articles. Thank you. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- ^ "Police Act 1964 (Amendment)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 28 June 1988. Retrieved 28 April 2020.
- ^ Newman, Kenneth (1985). Police, Metropolitan (ed.). The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour. London: Public Information Department, Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard. pp. 36–37. Retrieved 2024-09-13.