Jcncpe80

Welcome!

Hello, Jcncpe80, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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 articles are written from a third-person perspective, not first person ("I," "we") nor second person ("you").

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dybbuk box. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, don't mark edits as minor unless they meet the standards at WP:Minor edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WHOIS history shows that the term Dybbuk was used in 2000 on the website.

The USENET article shows that Dybbuk was also used in 1999. Jcncpe80 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

What part of "no original research" did you not understand the first two times I told you? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to find a book, or newspaper or magazine article, or even a news website. Just telling people to look up WHOIS data and view USENET posts is not citing a source, it is original research. That information needs to be put into context by a professional -- not by any editor here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Dybbuk box, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s not original analysis. Jcncpe80 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

So the WHOIS site isn’t a reliable source or google USENET archives? Jcncpe80 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it because I didn’t add it to the source section? I can easily add that Jcncpe80 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is why wiki is useless because you can point to facts and editors like you derail the facts. You must have a thing for Kevin Mannis because even after proof is given you silence it. He didn’t create the term Dybbuk or dybbuk box it was used way before him. Jcncpe80 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A website presenting just WHOIS data in isolation and the USENET archives would be primary sources. You need non-primary (i.e. secondary or tertiary) sources by professionals who have analyzed the primary sources.

"Wiki" is the software that this site and many unrelated sites use. The "No original research" policy is not a feature of the wiki software but of this website, Wikipedia. Maybe if you considered that you don't actually know what this site really is (a summary of other published works) instead of just crying over sour grapes, you'd have less trouble.

"Point to the facts" is the rallying cry of conspiracy theorists, cranks, fringe advocates, and other charlatans. Sticking to already published material actually helps us stick to real facts.

Where did I say that Kevin Mannis created the term Dybbuk? I came across that hoax because I was looking over the dybbuk article. Notice that I restored the lede that described his eBay listing as "horror fiction." Maybe if you read what people actually said instead of making up responses, you'd have an easier time here. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, I'm LuckyLouie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Dybbuk box have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Your edit summary for this edit was "fixed typos" [1] but you actually added a spam link. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)