Hello, Logawinner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Zaphnath-Paaneah did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Doug Weller talk 19:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Largoplazo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Logan (given name) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay Logawinner (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) What would be considered constructive? Logawinner (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Logan Square, Chicago (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ashland, Maplewood, Fullerton, Kimball, Kedzie and Diversey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Zaphnath-Paaneah. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You that commentary? Logawinner (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Zaphnath-Paaneah. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted your changes to Joseph (Genesis) and Naamah (Genesis), as they weren't helpful, as when you gave the entire King James Bible as a source for an arbitrary fact when the more specific source, Genesis, had been provided, and as when you listed Adam and Eve and Jesus as relatives of characters whose lives were many generations away from theirs. Also, that Naamah has been characterized as Noah's wife didn't need to be repeated, with the repetition declaring it a fact. Largoplazo (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Genesis 1:3. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On bibliogical articles it should be by God's policy. If you aren't a Christian please allow me to tell you if it's OK through God, it wouldn't be me it would be God deciding. Logawinner (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not and will not back any religion or god. And not all Christians have the same concept of their god. If you're going to insist on content in articles being based on your religion you won't be happy here. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a Christian. Even the apostle Paul's knowledge of "God's policy" was seen as though through a darkened mirror, and neither of us are in a position to assume to know as much of it as he did.

One interpretation I've heard for "do not take the Lord's name in vain" is that it refers to when one tries to invoke God to justify their own mortal foibles. I do not mean calling upon Christ to forgive sins, but saying "it's what God would want" when one really means "this is what I want." Ian.thomson (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand but God and Jesus never change. That's what I live by and others live by and I also understand God knows the answers and through prayer we can get those answers. Logawinner (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Wikipedia allowed people to contribute, as assertions of fact, the answers they receive through prayer, how do you imagine Wikipedia would reconcile contributions by, for example, you, with contributions by others that reflect answers they've received in response to their prayers but that completely contradict the answers that you believe yourself to have received? Largoplazo (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look it has to have verification or its the Devil. What I am trying is to find something that I can bombard with references so it is proved as fact. As there is always more than one way to do things. Unless its in the الكتاب المقدس.

Logawinner (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no verification for a great deal of what's in the Bible. For example, there isn't a single source in the world that verifies the Bible-based contention that the first person was a man named Adam and that the second person was a woman named Eve who was crafted from Adam's rib. Are you saying, then, that those parts of the Bible are the work of the devil? Largoplazo (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

الكتاب المقدس is just the Arabic term for the Bible, literally, "the holy book". Largoplazo (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read and follow WP:SEEALSO. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have learned it's best to edit in groups as I can't do it all on my own unless it's fixing the Citation problems of an article. Which I did in my early contributions do that by myself. Logawinner (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just created a sandbox article it's almost done can't wait for it to be done and be transfered to a normal article it's like perfect. Logawinner (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Genesis 1:2. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me see. How many edits to I have? Ah yes, over 200,000. Am I an Administrator? Yep, for over 10 years. Was I ever on the WP:Arbitration Commitee, the elected gorup that deals with problem editors and topic areas? Yep, elected for two terms. Maybe I've some idea what I'm talking about? Doug Weller talk 17:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why I would love your help editing the articles I try to make and I'm not joking, no sarcasm. Logawinner (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Logawinner, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to User:Logawinner/sandbox have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page.

The New King James translation of the Bible is a copyright-protected work. Also, see WP:NOFULLTEXT. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not my addition I just moved it over Tell the person that put it there Logawinner (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's your addition, even if you copied it from elsewhere it's still your edit. And if you copied it from another article without an edit summary or a talk page note saying where it came from, it's another copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And why am I not getting a response ugh respond to me above all others. Logawinner (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to say I didn't put it in that article someone else did. Logawinner (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we replied at the same time. Logawinner (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And can I copyright violate copying it from the same article? Common sense tells me no. Logawinner (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you ever worked to fix an article by yourself? Logawinner (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for everyone that uses it feel free to reply >no matter what<. Logawinner (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Is there an article specifically for how to make your own talk page get way too long lol.Reply[reply]

I placed the NKJV part to replace the unsourced text in "Verses", with the intention to select only some parts for the final article, not the whole chapter. The copied part was removed, before I could do the intended modification. Sorry for the confusion and sorry for causing the flag to be placed in the Sandbox. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logawinner, I've fixed literally thousands of articles. See the note I left you be Lomé, ignore the bit that says I dealt with it. That isn't something I wrote myself but a standard note. I was surprised and confused when I was first warned about it. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
• "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).
• Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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).
• User-generated sources (such as blogs, social media profiles, self-published books, or pay-to-print books) are generally not reliable sources. The only exception is when an already notable subject makes a claim about themselves that is not countered or doubted by independent sources.
• 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.
• 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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A further note: this was absolutely unacceptable. You do not edit other people's talk page posts, you do not dismiss someone on the grounds of what you assume about their ethnicity, and you do not accuse someone of being part of being an accomplice in a ludicrous and antisemitic conspiracy theory. Aside from the fact that conspiracy theorism in general is not particularly welcome here, personal attacks are not allowed. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been given enough information above to know why you should stop promoting this website. I'm here to say that if you really think it's a useful source, you need to get agreement at WP:RSN which is the noticeboard that decides such things. There you'll be told that you can't use it. Even without the claims here, it fails our criteria for sources or External links. --Doug Weller talk 14:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll find a more reliable source. Logawinner 1:21 PM September 29th, 2019

Yeah, now I have something to post on other's talk pages, thank you. Logawinner (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Young Earth creationism, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a general rule of thumb, if you're going to start a post with this is what I believe, it probably doesn't belong -- see WP:No original research and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for why.

You should really read the section "A summary of some important site policies and guidelines" I left above. If you had read it well enough to understand it, you'd've known that what you posted was inappropriate before now. If you just didn't care, please let us know. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Tower of Babel, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tower of Babel. bonadea contributions talk 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your idea of vandalism? I didn't know anyone would interpret it that way.

Your recent editing history at Tower of Babel 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. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thank you. Can you make a list of more things to read other than the basic reading.

Please put below a list of articles that are not basic and are about editing. Logawinner (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They wouldn't be articles, they'd be policy and guideline pages.

I've written a guide that covers a wide variety of topics new users have problems with. It explains the difference between articles, talk pages, and other types of pages. It also summarizes a number of relevant policies and guidelines, as I did earlier on your talk page, in the section "A summary of some important site policies and guidelines. That you still either haven't read that above section or else haven't understood it raises concerns about your ability to edit.

There's also a tutorial. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits to Respect suggest that you still don't understand the following ideas at all:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• 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).
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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).

I strongly recommend you go through this tutorial before you continue to try to edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logawinner, I came here to point out that in the article Homer Hickam, you have been adding references that do not meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (including reference links to commercial book sellers and to IMDb), but I can't do better than point to Ian's list above and ask that you read those information pages. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 17:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facepalm Looks like I need to re-emphasize these points again:

• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• 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).
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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).

There's a reason I keep pointing these things out to you, Logawinner: posts such as this and this give the impression that you're sticking your head in the sand whenever anyone explains site policy to you. If you have no interest whatsoever in even acknowledging this site's policies regarding original research and reliable sourcing, you really need to find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This time I wonder what the context is.Logawinner (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]