User talk:Researcher1988

Capital letters

I see that you have added relevant and interesting facts in several articles about food, also giving sources for your additions. Good work! However, it would be great if you could try to learn when to use and especially when not to use capital letters in English language prose. Keep up the good work. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sol 159.255.48.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:Ethnicity

Per MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Feel free to start a discussion, on relevant talk pages, to gain consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why This is not the case with Shakespeare and Goethe? Both have cited Ethnicity Before their names in the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have correctly stated the subject's nationality. See WP:CONTEXTBIO including note [a]. Skyerise (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Talk:Zoroastrianism. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.[1] --Thinker78 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters theses

Only PhD dissertations are considered reliable sources; Masters theses are not. Please do not use Masters theses (yours?) to source Zoroastrianism. If you disagree, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard to get consensus about your specific proposed sources. Please do not continue to edit-war to include them without such a consensus. Skyerise (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]

one of these papers by Mario Ferrero is a research paper and not a master thesis which has been published in various sites.

the other by Jason Heckert is a masters thesis but is published and thus should be considered reliable sources. besides, Wikipedia does not mention that master thesis are not Reliable. it says: "masters dissertations and thesis are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant Scholarly influence." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your fault for providing only a link without expanding the details of the citation. Your edit summaries said it was a thesis, why should I second guess you? Skyerise (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise

I will re-Add the other source as well. the Master thesis by Jason Heckert has been published in various websites ad thus had significant Scholarly influence. so it can be considered a WP:RS Researcher1988 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I will remove it. It is not WP:RS. If you believe otherwise, get an ok from the reliable sources noticeboard: that's what its for. If you continue to readd Masters thesis, I will report you for edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Since one thesis was spammed in multiple places, Imma gonna have to assume it was yours. Best not to give the appearance of having a conflict of interest, when other sources exist.

Hello, Researcher1988. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Zarathustrianism, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with conflict of interest. I simply find the source on the Internet. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not needed, since everywhere it was used has at least one better source cited. Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in Further reading if you like, though. Skyerise (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Your edit to Zoroastrianism has been removed in whole or in part, 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. GretLomborg (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoroastrianism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy note regarding Wikipedia culture

Hi there. Please take this in the mode of friendly and helpful advise. As a matter of courtesy it is generally preferable to use they / them pronouns for all editors unless they disclose otherwise in which case we should their preferred pronouns. In the case of VFF they state on their userpage that they prefer they / them specifically. It is generally good courtesy to comply in these cases. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. no problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223

Obviously you are mistaking here. the user I'm interacting with tried to vandalize the Zoroastrianism page several times in the past. he had very little knowledge of Zoroastrianism or Religious subjects related to this topic, yet he wanted to edit the page according to his own interpretations, without listening to our arguments or accepting the sources we provide.

It was 4 months.

and now, you are reporting me, who wanted nothing but to protect the page from Vandals? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You treating edit conflicts as if it were vandalism is a root of the problem. I suggest you reserve further comment for the AN/I discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223

Its not edit conflict. it was Vandalism. the user wanted to add misinformation and material not supported by sources to the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs as citation

Please stop using bare URLs as citations. Please learn how to use the {{cite}} templates to create a full citation with author, date, title, journal, publisher, ISBN, doi, etc. I will revert any further lazy use of bare URLs. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise

why a full citation? what's the difference? can't we use normal references? and why not? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You call yourself "Researcher" and you don't know that? A "full citation" is a "normal reference" to a researcher. The rest of us didn't just make it up as a cute user name. Would you publish a paper with only a bare URL as a reference, "Researcher"? Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise

now you are trying to be funny, but you can't. ok.

I know what a full citation is; tell me why not a normal reference? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full citations are required for an article to advance to Good Article status, and it's nobody's responsibility to clean up after you. You are responsible to make your additions up to code. Since this is a former good article, your additions and citations must live up to good article standards, which do not allow the use of bare URLs. It's also courteous to your fellow editors that they be able to see what you are citing in the diff without having to click through to the article, then find the url, then click through it to see what you cited. You might notice that no other citation in the article uses a bare URL and no other editor is adding them either. You are there to get the article back to good article status, aren't you? Skyerise (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Zoroastrianism 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; read about 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. Skyerise (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise

why you don't send such warnings to users who are deleting the texts with has reliable sources? Researcher1988 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who is reverting them. That's edit warring. Improving the article isn't. You've been informed exactly how your edits are deficient, and you seem unable to take a neutral point of view, which is required of editors. Skyerise (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your edit include saying "may have influenced" - which indicates speculation, not certainty. You continue to have problems with capitalization - Features is a common noun and there is no reason to capitalize it. Generally, disputes in the body must be resolved before deciding what to add to the lead. You seem to be a proponent of certain positions which are not widespread among scholars. We call that WP:FRINGE. You've been repeatedly told these things by multiple editors and you don't modify your behavior but rather just stick your fingers in your ears. We call that WP:ICANTHEARYOU and its one of the indicators of not being here to build an encyclopedia but rather having another agenda. Skyerise (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even?

Do you read the entire article you are citing before you cite it? Because that is an essential part of the process of understanding what it actually says. Skyerise (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully, word by word. what about you? Researcher1988 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you continuously misrepresent what they say out of context? Skyerise (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what context exactly? the text from the lead? Researcher1988 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the detailed analysis of what the sources you used actually say in contrast to what you presented them as saying at Talk:Zoroastrianism#Plan to Remove Unsupported Section Making Fringe Claims. You really seem out of your depth here, trying to fool editors who are not fools. Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the sara Kuehn article? I used it to support Zoroastrian influence on Christianity.

I wanted to add better sources to that section, other than the sara kuehn article. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we trust what you add when you misrepresent what they say? Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misrepresent their claims. the problem is that you and your friends are siding with that Vandal who wanted nothing but to destroy the page for 4 months. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another long-term Wikipedia editor a "Vandal" violates our no personal attacks policy. You need to stop doing this or you will be blocked for it. You simply have a difference of opinion (i.e. "content dispute") based on different readings of sources. You two will have to find a comnpromise, and you aren't even trying. Issuing a personal attack warning below. If you continue to call other editors "Vandals", you will be issued a higher level warning each time. When it gets to level 4, you may be blocked. I am starting out at level two because you've already been warned about this at least once at WP:ANI. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are missing the point here. anyway these are some of the sources I wanted to use:

https://www.academia.edu/41617347/Zoroastrian_Influence_on_Post_Exilic_Jewish_Belief_and_Practice

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they published in journals? Not all papers on Academia.edu can be used: only ones which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Same with ResearchGate. And I am not missing the point, you are evading it. Will you stop calling the other editor a vandal and use their name or not? Skyerise (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes. they are reliable Researcher1988 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the evasion. What journals were they published in? Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer that for you. The second one was published in Numen and is reliable. The first one has not been independently published and the author's Academia.edu profile identifies them as a "Graduate student". That one is not reliable and you should not try to use it. Please be more discriminating. You may only use independently published sources, not ones which are only self-published on Academia.edu. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Dr. Nathan Fredrickson has PHD in religious studies, and has 15 years of advanced research behind him. so It should be reliable. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our policy. Our policy is that it must be published in a peer-reviewed journal or an independently published book. Please read WP:RS. We do not permit unpublished sources. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His biography: "I have over 15 years of advanced research experience..."

"...I then planned to become a reference librarian, earning a M.S. in library and information science, but my amazing faculty and graduate colleagues in the School of Information Sciences inspired me to continue my pursuit of understanding the powerful role of religious and other worldviews in human lives by earning an M.A. and a Ph.D. in religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara..." Researcher1988 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just lied. Here is his profile at UCSB. He has not completed his PhD, rather he is still pursuing it: "PhD, Religious Studies, University of California Santa Barbara, ongoing." You may not use that source. This is exactly why we require publication in a peer-reviewed journal. You are not going to convince any editor to allow any source that hasn't been. Skyerise (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You just lied" this is a very nasty misinterpretation of what I wrote.

I quoted his own biography which says: "I Earned my PHD: ""...I then planned to become a reference librarian, earning a M.S. in library and information science, but my amazing faculty and graduate colleagues in the School of Information Sciences inspired me to continue my pursuit of understanding the powerful role of religious and other worldviews in human lives by earning an M.A. and a Ph.D. in religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara..." Researcher1988 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, there is an excerpt from Mary Boyce book: "Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general last judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowing by Judaism Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence. Since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice." Researcher1988 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discussing the content of sources here. That belongs on the article talk page. I am discussing what sources can and can't be used. We don't trust statements written by the author of a paper about their credentials; we trust their publishers. It's simply not a usable source. We don't know for sure if he has a PhD, we don't know whether it was written before or after his PhD, if he even has one. We are not allowed to use self-published papers, only independently published ones. This is a rule. You don't get an exception just because you like what he says. Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what about Mary Boyce Excerpt? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Bring it up on the article talk page. I'm not the only editor who has to approve. You have to get a consensus among all the active editors - the number of which continues to increase due to your visibility on WP:ANI. If I were you, I'd suddenly understand that Wikipedia is not a place to prove a point and give up on this article, spend some time editing other articles which you aren't so emotionally involved with, and only come back to Zoroastrianism when you can approach it more objectively. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024: Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. 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. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]