User talk:Primal Groudon

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Flat Earth are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the standard notice, looking at the section immediately above, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. I'll add a standard welcome here that might help you get started if you're interested in editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Primal Groudon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days of creation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Seven days of creation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Seven days of creation (January 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Genesis creation narrative instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Seven days of creation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Seven days of creation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 03:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primal Groudon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 03:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jesus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

- Mr X 🖋 18:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about me saying Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that complies with what you said. It is neutral, did not contain original research, and is objective.Primal Groudon (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is not "objective" since it fails the WP:CHOPSY test. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That subsection said nothing about Jesus or anything similar, so it does not fail. Objective just means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" was directly stated several times in the Bible and is not influenced by any opinion. The statement "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" is only influenced by the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is neutral, contains no original research. and is objective. It does not fail the test and coincides with the definition of objective which just means not influenced by opinion. Also, those six universities don't all teach the same thing. There is also Meriam-Webster, which creates the dictionaries. Even the Oxford definition would still say void of opinion, not "Something that passes our test and only our test.Primal Groudon (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't make the call. Full professors who are WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars make the call and they couldn't agree upon where was Jesus born. So the academic consensus is that there cannot be any consensus upon this issue, other than Jesus being born in Herod's kingdom. Not Bethlehem, not Nazareth, not Bethlehem of Galilee, none of these gained majority support. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I say the decision was up to me? Also, if a Wikipedia community nakes the decisions, as you said, than that means Wikipedia's opinion is all that matters. Primal Groudon (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debates about edits I made

Your draft article, Draft:Seven days of creation

Hello, Primal Groudon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Seven days of creation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Book of Leviticus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Book of Ruth, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Book of Ruth. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. See WP:PRIMARY. The Bible isn't a WP:Reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Book of Ruth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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/Vaxorian, 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) 22:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That entire investigation request was fully frivolous, specious, and without any supporting evidence. Please do not make any similar frivolous investigation requests in the future. Sincerely, Primal Groudon (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Book of Leviticus, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Clearly not a minor edit by our criteria, but even worse clearly disputed. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV-pushing that "JEDP have not been shown to exist" was reverted by me, Achar Sva, Dimadick, and Doug Weller. I think that it is time that you stop pushing such POV, otherwise WP:ANI is just around the corner. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that my edits about the documentary hypothesis were not advocating any point of vies is a definite fact. Those edits were just stating the neutral facts that the "sources" of the Torah had not been proven to exist. Making it clear that a hypothesis has not been proven to be true is not in any pushing forward a point of view. Making it clear that a hypothesis has not been proven to be true is what my edits were doing. Therefore, my edits were not pushing forward any point of vies. This is a fact. Whether you admit or deny so is your freedom to choose, but the fact that my edits to Torah-related articles were not pushing any point of view is a fact. If I was pushing forward any point of view at all, I would make edits claiming the four "sources" of the Torah never existed, but I didn't. All I did was bring up the fact that they have not been proven to exist, which is not pushing forth any point of vies. This is a fact. The fact that my edits were not pushing fortha ny point of view (which is a fact) concludes the discussion. Primal Groudon (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Year of Three Presidents (United States)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Year of Three Presidents (United States) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dorama285 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primal Groudon,

Please read Wikipedia's guideline, Wikipedia:No original research. All information in an article must be verifiable, ideally from secondary reliable sources. If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse for answers. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I expected to pretend that my article was original research? Primal Groudon (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you had no secondary sources. You need reliable sources (books, newspapers, journal articles, scholarly work, etc.) supporting the premises of your article. It can't be your invention that you came up from reading the Constitution.

No secondary sources? That's a complete lie. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, rather than trying to create your own article, you could work on Constitution of the United States or Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the content of this article before it was deleted. However, this happened twice in United States history, in 1841 and again in 1881. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Book of Ruth. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I didn't. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did, as it was explained to you by multiple other editors on Talk:Book of Ruth the last time this happened. Laying low and then trying to make the same WP:OR changes months later isn't going to fly. Any further attempts and I'll raise the issue at WP:ANI. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening me in order to get me to comply with your false accusations is not going to work. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're lying about the number of reverts and the fact that my edits weren't original research? How despicable. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Book of Joshua shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Japanese and long vowels

The article doesn't say "Old Japanese didn't have long vowels" but if you go down to the "Vowels" paragraph and you look at the various systems of reconstruction of the Old Japanese vowels (there's not one but several of them) you'll see that none involves long vowels. 178.51.93.5 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]