Foorgood

Hi, I noticed while perusing your contributions that you often add HTML links as sources. This is not good practice according to WP:CS:EMBED. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Citing sources and to provide complete citations of the material your are sourcing your contributions to. This will allow other contributors to check the reliability of your sources rapidly and, as a result, and they will revert your edits less often. Cheers.--JBchrch (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I concur with JBchrch. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Veverve: Thank you I was just going to leave a message on your talk page saying i will work on doing that.Foorgood (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, you tend to add supplementary sources without acknowledging the fact that there is already a source supporting the same facts. Compare what you have done vs my correction. Veverve (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh i see i guess since it said "possibly protestant parents" and it didnt have a source by it i had no idea your source (which i cant view online) would say the same thing.

As other editors have asked, please take the time to add proper citations WP:CS rather than bare URLs. Bare URLs create extra work for other editors who then have to spend time correcting your work. Thank you.FFM784 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

@Foorgood: Greetings! Judging from your contributions, you seem very proficient about atheism and faith. The atheism article is currently having some issues with citations in various locations. All issues have been raised in the atheism talk page, and your help would be extremely beneficial in saving it from going through FAR. If you have any will or free-time, your help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add bare URL´s als sources as you did here. Bare URLs are subject to link rot, they often stop working in the future, leaving the content unsourced. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry you can correct it Im not sure how.Foorgood (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do not WP:CANVASS, as you did here. You should also be following WP:BRD when your edit is challenged. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clearly there is no canvassing simply notifying the users of your edit warring when 2 users are in consensus with me against you.Foorgood (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please do not cite articles with bare URLs. Such citations cannot be easily evaluated for reliablity. Please create full citations, preferably using the {{Cite}} templates. You should always include author, date, title, and publisher as a minimum. Otherwise your additions are likely to be removed. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

We have multiple citation styles on Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to match the primary citation style in the article. In John Dee, that's using the {{sfn}} template and adding the source to the works cited section. Also, a book citation isn't complete without the publisher and the ISBN. I've fixed it for you this time, but try to be more complete and consistent in the future. Skyerise (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh I didn't know they had to be different styles thank you!Foorgood (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The sfn or sfnp style is really superior. Hover over the superscript and it will show you the note, then hover over the author and it will show you the full citation. Too bad we didn't have it in the early days... I tend to convert articles to it before I expand them, as being a good way to actually review all the references and remove unreliable sources and information before adding new material. Technically one is supposed to get consensus to do that, but these days in the magic field, there are almost no active editors. Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2022 (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 shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Sangdeboeuf. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Thomas Beatie, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. 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! Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am going to try to get the information published from him but please show me where email correspondence from the original source stating a fact about themselves and giving me authorization to make it public is not allowed on wikipedia? This was a failed proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Private_correspondence.Foorgood (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If anyone but the subject of the article self-publishes material about them, including emails, it is not usable per WP:BLP. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

So if Thomas Beatie records a video of himself saying this and sends it to me or he types and signs a pdf document saying this to me, are those acceptable?Foorgood (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, and I strongly suggest you stop bothering this person about their parents' religious affiliation. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thomas was more than glad to share this with me and he loves telling his upbringing story in his book. Answer my question why wouldnt a video or pdf be acceptable?Foorgood (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Already answered; unless Beatie publishes (i.e. makes available to the public) the material himself, it's prohibited per BLP policy. Self-published material, even by the subject of the article, is never usable for claims about third parties (e.g. someone's parents). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so my last question is if he says on a pdf "this is to be available to the public" doesnt that fit the definition? because Thomas himself can publish the pdf online. Of course he can make claims about his parents he did it in his book.Foorgood (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The book was not self-published; that's why we use it. Published means 'made available to the public', not 'intended to be made available to the public'. Saying something is to be published isn't the same as publishing it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not "hunting your edits"; all of these pages are on my watchlist.— Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok I understand and I appreciate you removing my Eva addition on Hitler's personal page. It was just frustrating about the "trivia" perspective.Foorgood (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Religion is not very important to me, but it is for others, especially in the era when these people were born. So it's not trivial for everyone or in every era. So I apologise.— Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and yes some editors work on general information others on specific details. I try to take everything from independent source publishers so thanks for catching the self published ones.Foorgood (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at British Empire 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. WCM_email 19:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your reply in the Talk page.Foorgood (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you're going for here, Foorgood, reverting Diannaa and Cullen328. As a German Evangelical, the origin of his faith--if he had any faith--is in Lutheranism, like water is wet. But that's totally beside the point here: the German Evangelicals were their own sick brand; adding "Lutheran" means nothing in this context, and doing this in the caption of an article that is not about Muller or about that church is just a distraction. I'll add, as an FYI, that "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" has nothing to do with Cambridge University and only leans on that name, and that the jury is still out on their reputation; the couple of books that I have looked at from them are not very impressive, from a scholarly point of view. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sir the point is the caption said “Shaking hands with Catholic dignitaries” before so why is it a problem to specify Lutheran now since it was wrong specifying Catholic and I have more top sources for it.^[1], ^[2].

Foorgood (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit-warring, this is a bright-line violation on your part, reference or no reference. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m done edit warring Acroterion, I just was responding here to Drmies asking why was it allowed to say “Catholic dignitaries” before.Foorgood (talk) :2:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You responded with hostility to my observation that the man standing next to him appeared to be a Catholic clergyman with the unnecessarily aggressive response how dare you make a false claim. I never said that I was 100% sure, so I consider that aggressiveness unacceptable. Who do you think that man was, and what do you think his religious identification was? I do not claim to be an expert in the religious garb of Nazi Germany, and readily admit that I am a Jew. But I attended a Catholic high school and graduated from Catholic university, decades ago. That guy looks like a Catholic prelate to me. What say you? Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well Cullen you reverted my edit without even reading my source and I even have two other sources: ^[3],^[4], ^[5]

Foorgood (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please provide quotations from those sources that discuss the identities of the people in this photo. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you were to click the link of each source above you would see the following quotes: "Later that year (on December 19th, 1933), the Lutheran Evangelical Reichsbischof,127 Ludwig Müller", "The German Christians were headed by a single Lutheran bishop, Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), a true believer", "Although the German Christians movement was officially born in 1932, formed and led by Lutheran Pastor Ludwig Müller". And these are the sources for the photo: https://www.akg-images.com/archive/-2UMDHUW6ORVC.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-adolf-hitler-l-greets-nuremberg-bishop-ludwig-mller-r-during-the-nuremberg-163698693.html https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/adolf-hitler-shakes-hands-with-the-protestant-reich-bishop-news-photo/959162802Foorgood (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not talking about Müller who was the sort of "Lutheran" who wanted to purge the Old Testament. I am talking about the man standing next to him. Who was that? Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The man Hitler is shaking hands with is the Lutheran Bishop Ludwig muller while the man standing next to Ludwig is a Catholic bishop it's in the Getty image linkFoorgood (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, just as I said all along. It was the Nazi Catholic prelate Albanus Schachleiter. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me you reverted my edit on who Hitler was shaking hands with because you said he wasnt a Lutheran.Foorgood (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The point is that the identification of Muller as "Lutheran" in the caption is redundant, esp. if it needs to be footnoted, and that he may have called himself, and been considered, a "Lutheran" in 1932, but the man that Hitler shook hands with was the Reichsbishof, not a "Lutheran bishop"--and Muller was never, as far as I can tell a bishop in the Lutheran church. He was a pastor, no more. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Drmies the point is you havent answered my question: why was it allowed to say "Catholic dignitaries" before but now when I correct it to say he was Lutheran you don't allow it?Foorgood (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It was never "allowed". It was an error that was not noticed previously and that has now been corrected. But we do not correct an error by adding another error. Where is the evidence that Müller was actually a Lutheran bishop? Also, a Catholic dignitary is standing right next to Müller. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't "allow" anything. And you are completely missing the point. In common parlance, "Lutheran bishop" means a bishop in the Lutheran church. He wasn't. Can we move on now? Drmies (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cullen is there something wrong here? Ive repeated to you three times the sources and quotes: "Later that year (on December 19th, 1933), the Lutheran Evangelical Reichsbischof,127 Ludwig Müller", "The German Christians were headed by a single Lutheran bishop, Ludwig Müller (1883–1945), a true believer", "Although the German Christians movement was officially born in 1932, formed and led by Lutheran Pastor Ludwig Müller".^[6],^[7], ^[8]

Foorgood (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those sources are wrong or speaking casually. Müller was never appointed a bishop by any legitimate Chistian church. He was appointed as a bishop by a Nazi political functionary August Jäger against the opposition of the established Christian churches. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And thats why i said how dare you make a false claim original research against three independent reputable sources.Foorgood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

False? Please read Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, especially Friedrich von Bodelschwingh#Reich bishop in the commencing Struggle of the Churches. Müller was not in any sense a legitimate Lutheran bishop. He was a "Reichsbischof" imposed by the Nazis. It is also interesting that the German Wikipedia biography of Müller does not call him Lutheran. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Im done arguing this but here is a source in German from the 40s saying he was a Lutheran Bishop-^[9] In english it translates "the Lutheran Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller was taken in because he too was striving for the Lutheran Church of the German Nation".

Foorgood (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

He was a Lutheran pastor, yes. He was also a Lutheran. But "Reichsbischof" was not a position in the Lutheran church--that some of your sources use the phrase doesn't make it so, and it is better to be more precise here rather than less precise. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok i can accept that.Foorgood (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Henry VII of England 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me you are the one who was been edit war reverting.Foorgood (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Foorgood! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at St Mary's Church, Pembroke that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I literally just told you not to tag edits as minor, and what do you do? Revert in the midst of an AN3 discussion after already reverting 5 times in the space of 6 hours and tag the revert as minor[1]. You're lucky the block is only for 31 hours. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I also second all the requests for you to fill bare urls. There are tools available for this, such as WP:ReFill. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Drkay I didn't revert i simply changed the word from record to documentation as it says in your source. Will you uphold the addition of St Marys church on Henry VII's page if someone removes it?Foorgood (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why someone would remove it, but if it was removed and I wanted to retain it, then I would start a talk page discussion not revert the removal. DrKay (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok and is this block the result of the notice board as well wouldn't it be closed then?Foorgood (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DrKay: would the block be able to simply be 24 hours?Foorgood (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Foorgood. If you could please learn how to properly format your citations, that would be really helpful. Pasting the url of something you found via a Google book search is the most primitive form of citation, and will invariably not match the style already present in the article. For example your recent edit to Adolf Hitler. For articles that have already been brought to Good Article status, it's important that you do a nice job of it, because otherwise people will have to clean up after you. It's only courteous to not create extra work for your fellow editors. Besides, Wikipedia is a highly viewed resource and we are looking to attain a level of professionalism, not only in the verifiability of the content we provide, but in the quality of the text and the quality of the citations. Creating properly formatted citations with all the relevant data about the source is part of that process, because it makes it easier for people to check and make sure that the source you provided backs up the content you added, and is a reliable source. Please have a look at Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts as a place to start learning about citations and the various citation templates. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are right Diannaa and thank you for bringing these articles to Good Status.Foorgood (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  DrKay (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Drkay i simply changed the word from record to documentation as it says in your source. Will you uphold the addition of St Marys church on Henry VII's page if someone removes it?Foorgood (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DrKay: would the block be able to simply be 24 hours?Foorgood (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason at this point to unblock because your request does not address the reason for the block or explain why you should be unblocked. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for guidance. DrKay (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DrKay:

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

My goal is to bring new details and improvements but I will no longer edit war or revert without coming to consensus in talk. Foorgood (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Accept reason:

See above. DrKay (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DrKay:Thank you sir just making sure my recent edits are not warring because he told me I simply needed to get a better source then fix the citation. All they are reverting for is because I need to correct the citation format so if I correct it and remake the edit I want to make sure that’s not edit warring.Foorgood (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And we then talked it over more on the Talk page so now i made a different edit that they are accepting.Foorgood (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DrKay: Im trying to make sure i understand how edit warring works, so if someone reverts my edits three times, arent they the ones edit warring and not me?Foorgood (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Generally, you'd both be edit-warring, unless one of the editors was exempted. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please be more fastidious with your citations. Bare URLs are never acceptable as citations, whether they be to web pages or to books. Likewise, your recent citation of Alison Weir did not follow the established citation style of the page on which the edit was made. Please be more careful in citing sources correctly, in the style already established on the respective pages, such that others do not have to clean up after you. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

User refuses to stop edit warring on the Lenin article despite having been told to stop by DaEditorz (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi FoorGood

I dispute the edit you made in the lead of the Antinatalism article. In your edit you provide an example of the aforementioned ethical arguments in favor of antinatalism.

My initial gripe was that your edit was unnecessary, given that the lead perfectly summarizes the article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article after reverting your edit. I still stand by that, but I'm willing to compromise with you by

1) removing the explanation between parentheses (just seems too specific)

2) adding reliable sources

and

3) adding "For example" at the start of the sentence for clarity sake

Dark Looon (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes you can do any of that as long as Nietzsche is mentioned since it's a summary of the article.Foorgood (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know how to incorporate Nietzsche into the lead but I've gone ahead and improved the article Dark Looon ([[User talk:Dark

Looon|talk]]) 17:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh geez I'm sorry I meant Kant. Thank you.Foorgood (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

So, you combine two source to create a new fact? Could you please read WP:SYNTH? The Banner talk 19:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No sir the first source is for her husband being Episcopalian the second source is for Margaret being Episcopalian Foorgood (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Then why do you state that Sanger was a "wealthy Episcopalian". I can not find that in either of the sources. The Banner talk 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The first source says Noah slee was a wealthy Episcopalian I just added Noah before slee for clarification.Foorgood (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

And what is the relevance of this remark for the article? And why a remark about her religion in the section "social activism"? The Banner talk 20:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since it was talking about her marriage I thought it good to give background on him from a biography of Margarets and then state she took on his religion too. If you want to move it that's fine Foorgood (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should add a Personal Life section like almost all biography articles have.Foorgood (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Even then her religion is irrelevant. The Banner talk 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok sir but remember almost all important biographies on wiki mention their religion because every fact like that is important to some people.Foorgood (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some people want to make biographies in to list of trivia. To counter that, those facts should have a relation with what makes Sanger notable. The Banner talk 21:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I understand and some people do add much trivia but imagine how many in Christianity demonize Sanger and think she was an atheist when that is incorrect and her wiki article also mentions much work she did with churches and ministers.Foorgood (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:COATRACK. Encyclopedia articles are articles about their topics, not for whatever random other things you think are important. JBL (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me wikipedia absolutely deems a mention of religion as important. You are invalid.Foorgood (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

And why is her religion relevant? The Banner talk 09:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

First of all the whole world is aware how relevant abortion and religion are. From Norma Mccorveys conversion and deconversion, to protestors claiming a Catholic supreme court took the right away- the pro life movement is a religious one. As I said, in Sangers article her work with churches and ministers is already discussed because to her it was so important to get them on board with birth control etc. I know that you know this.Foorgood (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know. But I also know that she used churches to reach the people. Not for religious reason, just practical. The Banner talk 12:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the pdf interview, after saying she's an Episcopalian, she actually states she believes "the worst sin is bringing children into the world" on page 7. So she took religion serious to some degree.Foorgood (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is a curious interpretation. You are connecting two unrelated facts, again WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 12:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Haiti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voodoo. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Consider this a final warning. As has been explained to you repeatedly, in multiple places, bare Google Books search result URLs are not in any way acceptable as citations. Do it again, and I will raise the matter at WP:ANI, where I will ask that you be blocked from article space until you agree to stop doing this, and demonstrate your ability to format a proper citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I apologize sir and thank you for your extensive contributions on unique topics.Foorgood (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@AndyTheGrump: [2] --JBL (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Geez I missed just one ive done all the others perfectly I'm sorry I'll fix it.Foorgood (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. I really took Andy's advice to heart and starting using the Citer tool on every single source but I missed that only one don't know how.Foorgood (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Any more of this and you will face a block. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to even comment further there where I've been ganged up on by 3 friends with an agenda who think they know better than the top Universities in the world. Not one of them has provided 1 reputable source to support their original research.Foorgood (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The survey does not say how "Native American" respondents were gauged - by tribal standards, self-id, or random census worker's impressions. I looked over the site and could find no data on this. Without this supporting data, the resultant poll results are unfortunately useless and possibly very misleading, for instance, like the mascot polls that rely on self-id. If it's anything like the general reporting in the last census, where self-id was allowed, the number of people falsely reporting Native status/ancestry increased exponentially. These could be largely non-Natives with blood myths. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have made a revert without making any serious research into PRRI or their methodology they are the most used religious source on wiki after Pew. Their methodology is as extensive as possible. https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/#_ftn1

" 2020 American Values Atlas (AVA) is a project of PRRI. Results for all demographic, religious affiliation, and political affiliation questions were based on 50,334 bilingual telephone interviews (including 35,212 cell phone interviews) conducted between January 7, 2020 and December 20, 2020 by professional interviewers under the direction of SSRS. National results for questions on specific issues are based on a subset of 10,052 telephone interviews (including 6,981 cell phone interviews) conducted in 10 weeks spread across the year. State level results for questions on specific issues are based on the national subset plus an oversample of 10 key states in 30 additional weeks, resulting in 23,536 interviews across all 50 states plus the District of Columbia (including 16,848 cell phone interviews)." Foorgood (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Responded at article talk. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

These really aren't a good idea. Are you sure this [3] isn't copyright? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case then forget the pdfdrive, my citation is entirely appropriate from Google books look here too https://www.google.com/search?q=eight+million+zoophilia+us&client=ms-android-uscellular-us-revc&biw=360&bih=627&tbm=bks&ei=Tp2HY6_aHZHZptQPo8KzuA8&oq=eight+million+zoophilia+us&gs_lcp=Cg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAQAzoFCAAQogQ6BwgAEB4QogQ6AggpOggIABAFEAcQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgUIABCGAzoICAAQCBAeEA1QxAlYjB9gsiBoAHAAeACAAbsCiAGyGZIBCDAuMTYuMi4xmAEAoAEBqgEZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc8ABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-serpFoorgood (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The citation has nothing to do with it. You shouldn't be linking to copyright violating downloads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well then I apologize and won't post that again. I wasn't aware that was completely unallowed since I've seen someone else do it before.Foorgood (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.

After grave warnings at WP:ANI, you immediately moved to disruptive axe grinding and POV pushing about Elon Musk's religion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Guys I completely calmly and civily had a discussion with all the members on the talk page and then said ok guys fine I accept your consensus and I stopped editing the page!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Anglican_upbringing The user User:HAL333 even thanked me for my edit when I accepted there consensus in my last message! Every message I wrote was respectful and civil! Acroterion told me to not edit any more Zoophilia pages and if I acted uncivil I would be blocked and I acted extremely civily on the Elon Musk talk page what happened!? Foorgood (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You immediately went to Talk:Elon Musk and started arguing with people there, after being told to stop doing things like that, everywhere. You've exhausted everybody's patience. I endorse the indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2022 (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.

Sir each of the 10 comments I made was respectful and calm I didn't argue at all I asked questions and when they were all answered and consensus was against me I accepted it and left.Foorgood (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The comments were in support of bad sourcing, which has been a consistent issue with you. You were told they were bad, and you persisted. You kept on doing the same things you were doing before, just in another topic. That's a waste of volunteer time to deal with, and you've wasted enough of everybody's time. You haven't listened to advice. Again, I am considering your conduct as a whole, not just individual places where you've caused trouble, in isolation. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to understand if business insider was unreliable which I was unaware of. Please compare the difference between AEO and Andy's situations where I accused them of things and demanded they accept my position VS this Elon Musk talk page where I intentionally decided it would be completely different so that every comment I made was in a very respectful tone by simply asking questions so that I could fully understand and once they established their consensus against me I said ok that's fine and stopped. I wanted this talk discussion to be my example of how I am to conduct myself on talk pages by having a good discussion like other editors do. Please in that consideration may the block be months instead of infinite if you have a restriction as a last chance where if I ever revert someone ONCE I get banned for life. Or should I wait to make another appeal next month?Foorgood (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply