Wittgenstein123

Copyright problem on Mac Tonight

Song lyrics are copyright, and we're not allowed to include them here. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello, I'm Rebbing. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jazz Jennings, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Rebbing 01:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Drewmutt. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Rachel Bloom— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rachel Bloom. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Warren, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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• We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 <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). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Yahweh. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at Talk:Yahweh

Besides the personal attack (and please note that attacking anyone because of their beliefs or lack of them is unacceptable and will probably lead to a block), I'm not sure that you can edit articles dealing with religion within our policy of WP:NPOV . Wikipedia takes a neutral stance on religion and simply presents what reliable sources say about it. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Some of these sources may be written by believers, others by non-believers. That's not as important as following our policies and guidelines, and if that's a problem for you perhaps you should avoid such articles. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User:Tgeorgescu. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Home Lander (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Wittgenstein123, 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.

Kirbanzo (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Wittgenstein123, 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.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)