GoutComplex

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, GoutComplex, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

All right. Thank you. GoutComplex (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi GoutComplex. I'm sorry to remove what you added to Charon, but the unsourced "cloud" idea is a personal interpretation, and seems unsupported by primary sources, scholarly sources or more general mythographic scholarship. The author published the work 100 years ago. She seems to have had no academic connections, reviews or history with reputable publishing houses, and should not be cited as a reliable source. Please take a look at Wkipedia's recommendations vis-a-vis reliable sources and verifiability (links are above). Haploidavey (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

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.)

Church of the East

added links pointing to Brill and Doubleday

Emperor Taizong of Tang

added a link pointing to Doubleday

Samurai

added a link pointing to European

Three Pure Ones

added a link pointing to Doubleday

Xian (Taoism)

added a link pointing to Doubleday

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samurai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dogon people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Footscray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bereshit mysticism (March 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bereshit mysticism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GoutComplex! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ööitketaja has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ööitketaja. Thanks! InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice work

I like your contributions to articles on Confucianism Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

多謝

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for all the work you're doing to improve Daoism and Buddhism articles! Keahapana (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xian (Taoism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Celts, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Don't just add stuff like you did to Celts. That idea is pretty much fringe nonsense, so it should not go into a WP article. Trigaranus (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Trigaranus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Taoism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is meant to cover the majority of your recent edits. Contributions are welcome *as long as they are backed up by reliable sources*. If you simply choose not to slow down and take the time to learn about WP:RS, you are looking at an edit block not far down the line. Trigaranus (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources again

Please be careful when adding references. I had to revert your edit here because you did not faithfully represent your (already quite contentious) source. Moreover, you added a children's book by Russell Freedman while attempting to cite details about Confucius' life. I would be surprised if you actually read this book before you added it, so I'd ask you to please make sure you're familiar with a source before adding it, and also to make sure that it's reliable. Retinalsummer (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I had to revert another of your edits (this time on the page for Taoism) because, not only did the passage you add not make sense in English, you cited it with a photobook published by Lonely Planet. This is not an example of a reliable source. Moreover, the text you added was about Daoist and Buddhist philosophy, so you need to cite a text that is about that, not one about Buddhist stupa in Asia. Please be more careful when finding sources to cite. Retinalsummer (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Secrets of the Universe in 100 Symbols is a book by an astrologer, not an expert on Chinese mythology, so it is not a good source for Fuxi. The Heart of the Dragon is a book published alongside a TV programme, and is not going to be high enough quality. Moreover, it's not about Chinese philosophy and/or religion, so is not a good source for Hun and po. I suggest you slow down and concentrate on making high quality edits that won't get reverted rather than adding multiple references per day. Retinalsummer (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tian

added a link pointing to Brill

Xian (Taoism)

added a link pointing to Brill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Essential facts"

This book seems to be non-WP-RS; please use better sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ööitketaja (June 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ca was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ööitketaja and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Information on reliable sources

You have been asked to be careful about using reliable sources multiple times to the point that I don't think you fully understand what a reliable source is. You can learn about reliable sources on wikipedia by reading these guidelines: WP:RS. Can you please confirm that you have read and understood these guidelines? Retinalsummer (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bereshit mysticism

Hello, GoutComplex. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bereshit mysticism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable, low quality sources

I'll be rather blunt, if you want to contribute to articles which fall under WikiProject Ancient Near East you need much better sources that what you are currently trying to add. John Holdren and Patricia O'Connell Pearson are not experts, their book has little to do with Assyriology and adding weird poetic misinterpretations of data ("immortality" is not exactly a concept of much consequence in Mesopotamian religion, this is not Taoism, and in particular the moon has nothing to do with it) is at best disruptive. Familiarize yourself with WP:RS as well as with solid Assyriological research, thanks. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Low quality sources and text

Hello, Gout Complex. I've reverted your changes to Vesta (mythology). The source you cite appears to be a very obscure picture book for children, school encyclopedia or similar, described as "... a K12 9th Grade World History Book". It is definitely not a reliable scholarly specialist source for ancient Roman religion. The text you added was incomprehensible to me. Best wishes, Haploidavey (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Apollo

I'm afraid that the same goes for your addition to Apollo, and the source you claim in support - the same you used at Vesta's article "...a K12 9th grade World History". I doubt if it would stand up to verification. Haploidavey (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Mercury (mythology)

The same goes for the Mercury (mythology) article. I've removed the same inappropriate source. Haploidavey (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hirohito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop citing school textbooks as sources

School/children's textbooks are not written to provide a reliable base for Wikipedia articles. Please would you also not add cited source material to introductory paragraphs, especially when the main body is well-sourced. Introductions are meant to be summaries of material already sourced and verifiable in the main body of articles. Haploidavey (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. According to the library I get various things from to cite various sources, this book was also meant for use as a history book meant to summarize things quickly for librarians, similar to a general history book for the typical buying audience. So that was why I used it.

Also, I do not understand your statement about citations in introductions. GoutComplex (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. A book described as intended for "young adults" as well as children (this is stated to be the case by the online pages describing the shelf-stock of various U.S. libraries), is not intended, for older school students, undergrads or above. The quality of our sources determines the quality of our articles. Every article should be as well-sourced as possible, and as up-to-date as possible. We can use general histories and encyclopedias if they have been positively and critically reviewed for accuracy of facts and opinions but it's always much safer to base Wikipedia material on scholarly sources written and reviewed by authors of Phd level and above. There is plenty to draw upon out there...

On the subject of citations in introductions; introductory paragraphs (the written matter up to the Index of chapters) should only be a summary of the main contents; the main contents (everything below the Index) must be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. The introductory paragraphs can employ Wiki-links but should not need to cite source, because that should be done in the material below. Don't hesitate to ask for more info, if you need it. Haploidavey (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The best publishing houses are those attached to Universities. They get heavy scrutiny. Haploidavey (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bereshit mysticism

Hello, GoutComplex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bereshit mysticism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Low quality sources again

Hi, I noticed that several edits, e.g. this, that you made to articles about the Anglo-Saxons on 1 October have been reverted as poorly sourced and wanted to explain the reasons. One reason that The Longman Anthology of British Literature: Volume 2A: The Romantics and Their Contemporaries is not a high quality source for the Anglo-Saxon period (c. 450 to 1066) is that its subject is the Romantic period (c. 1800 to 1850). A book or paper about the early middle ages would be better. Also the subject of the anthology is literature and it was used to support a statement about history, rather than literature. Let me know if you have any questions. TSventon (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source for Tao Te Ching edit

Hi there, I wanted to give you a heads up that I just reverted your recent edit to Tao Te Ching. I don't have access to the original book to verify this, but assuming your additions are accurate summaries of the cited Karen Armstrong book, I would caution against trusting her as a source on Taoism, as the claims are pretty definitely not justified.

(If you're curious, the TTC was almost certainly written by many people over many years, and experts widely agree that the authors' intentions are not well-understood. In some cases, the authors made explicit references to old legends by quoting from other known sources, shedding some light on intentions, but this is the exception, not the rule.) StereoFolic (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Another poor quality source

I reverted your edit to He Xiangu because your source was not written by an expert. Moreover, the page cited points to a list in a glossary that itself cites no sources for the claim. I am not confident that you understand what counts as a good source. Merely finding information in a book is not good enough, you need to find sources written by experts. An expert in this case would be an expert in Chinese religions, philosophies, or, ideally, Daoism in particular. Please try and read these guidelines: WP:RS. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

GoutComplex, you have now had nine messages about using reliable sources and have replied to only one of them. I would suggest that if you don't understand or don't agree with advice from other editors such as Haploidavey or Retinalsummer you should read the guideline WP:RS and reply to their advice or start a discussion on the article talk page.

A recent example is here where you used the phrase "those who align themselves with a political faction named the Tea Party" in a book about the year 1774 published in 2020 to conclude that the Tea Party movement still existed in 2020. The book is about the year 1774, so it is not a good source for the politics of the year 2020 and in any case it does not say when the Tea Party movement was active. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at The Backrooms, you may be blocked from editing. Please use secondary sources, not WP:PRIMARY ones. Belbury (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Monotheism in 19th Century Guangdong

In the page on monotheism, there was a paragraph "In the 19th century in the Guangdong region, monotheism was well-known and popular in Chinese folk religion." The source of that original paragraph was talking about the Taiping rebellion:

A desperate citizenry finally turned to violence. Nineteenth-century China roiled with rebellions, unprecedented in scale, and tens of millions of people died in the upheavals. The most serious one, known as the Taiping Rebellion, erupted in 1850 under the leadership of Hong Xiuquan, an ambitious young man from Guangdong province. A rural schoolteacher, Hong had tried repeatedly to pass the district-level imperial examination as his route to gentility. After failing the test several times, he suffered a mental breakdown and came to believe he was the son of God and the younger brother of Jesus Christ. An impassioned speaker, he started proselytizing, recruiting tens of thousands of followers, most from the bottom tier of Chinese society: homeless peasants, unemployed fishermen, charcoal burners off the streets. Some, however, were people with formidable military or technical skills, such as bandits, pirates, and former soldiers, as well as miners who knew how to handle explosives. Drifting north from Guangdong, the group moved from one city to another, seizing weapons and recruiting more people for their army.

I would consider the beliefs of the Taiping rebels to not be "Chinese folk religion", and ChatGPT also agreed after I asked it. So I was planning to edit that paragraph to remove the "Chinese folk religion" part and instead explain that it was talking about the Taiping rebellion.

However, I saw that you edited the page on monotheism, adding "likely of a henotheistic and/or monolatrous character in at least some contexts and locations" to that paragraph. Now if I make the edit I planned, it would change the meaning of the words you added. So what should I do now? Talfa 5.5 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GoutComplex. I undid your aforementioned edit so that I can fix the paragraph the way I planned to do so as I explained above. I find my decision justified considering that the claims in your edit have no source at all. Moreover, I have already contacted you above about the edit weeks ago, and you did not give any reply. Feel free to add your claims back with a source, if you do have one. Otherwise, please familiarize yourself with the WP:RS guidelines to understand how you can back up your claims with sources. Talfa 5.5 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ööitketaja

Hello, GoutComplex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ööitketaja".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on Empire

Hey @GoutComplex, I reverted your edit on Empire because I think that that type of claim needs a source provided and I was not sure if it applied to all empires. You may, however, know better than me, so if empires really do have an outsize influence, feel free to put the info back with a source.

Also, I think the language could have been improved - in comparison to *which* societies do empires have an outsize influence?

Anyways, I do think the point was an interesting one, and would love to see your further contributions on the article.

Have a nice day!

Sincerely, JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @GoutComplex, after reviewing your talk page, it seems like many editors have come to you with unresolved complaints over WP:RS. I made a post on WP:AN/I:

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_Noticeboard/Incidents regarding persistent disregard of WP:RS. The thread is User:GoutComplex's noncompliance with WP:RS. Thank you.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex, I'm very close to blocking you for unsourced editing and other problematic use of questionably reliable sources, or prose that provides little value or information or is flat out wrong. I've also asked for you to disclose your past accounts at ANI. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

ferret, the AN/I report has now been archived. do you want to take some action at this point? GoutComplex has taken a break from editing since you posted here, as they did when the AN/I report was made and when the previous one was made in December. TSventon (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If the disruption continues I'll likely take action. They need to explain their past accounts and how they're going to adjust going forward. Letting ANI archive does not close the issue. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GoutComplex, I see you have started editing again, please can you respond to ferret, who asked you to explain your past accounts and how you're going to adjust going forward. TSventon (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My account that I know about was Vanished User 9875. I think I possibly made another or used someone else's at one point, but I cannot remember. GoutComplex (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project CARS (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scholastic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for unsourced or improperly sourced information. After multiple ANI threads, disappearing after one then returning to continue and immediately getting reverted for sourcing issues, you need to convince us you're going to change. If this continues, it'll become an indefinite block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Government in Norman and Angevin England

I noticed you added a sub-section called "Knights" to this article. I have concerns about the relevance of this section to English government. It seems that you are writing about actions of English knights outside of England (or even outside of the Angevin Empire). Also, I don't think the last paragraph about atheists in the Low Countries has any relevance to this subject of this article. Ltwin (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed it some, and I believe it does fit because the article mentions and alludes to other international occurrences.

Is this better? GoutComplex (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't. I have removed the section and explained my reasoning on the article talk page. Ltwin (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex, I see that you added the knights section to the Angevin Empire article. I have removed it as it doesn't fit there either. Pinging Ltwin for information. TSventon (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

TSventon, thanks for pinging me. As I explained on Talk:Government in Norman and Angevin England, these edits are problematic for several reasons. The most serious reason is it seems some statements from the cited book were taken and expanded on by WP: original research. For example, it says that knights like William Marshal could rely on people to let them circumvent the law. The relevant passage in the cited source is page 64. This isn't the case of Marshal "circumventing the law"; its the case that the city did not believe Henry the Young King would pay what he owed them but they did believe Marshal's promise. Also, GoutComplex, you wrote that knights like Marshal "were generally respectful of atheists". The only thing I see in the source you provided is on page 65: "Since William Marshal was honourable, he often nagged the Young King about holding tournaments in Normandy, thinking they should be held only in the godless Low Countries." First, this statement cannot be applied to an entire class of people (the knights). Second, it's not talking about atheists. "Godless" here refers to a perception of the low countries as being less pious than other countries. Ltwin (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angevin Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borderlands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Pan

Hello, @GoutComplex. I wanted to let you know that I've reverted an edit you made to the article Pan (god). While the information you added seems plausible, it was sourced to a book called Goddesses, Mages, and Wise Women: the Female Pastoral Guide in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century English Drama. This book is not a secure source of information about Greco-Roman religion— it is about drama, not religion, about England, not Greece or Rome, and about the 16th and 17th centuries, not about ancient times. The authors may have researched ancient Mediterranean religion as part of their work, but they are not necessarily experts on it. A book specifically about ancient Mediterranean religion will be more reliable and will have much more to say about the topic.

I've looked a bit at your work, and in a way it seems very familiar to me. I like searching through books for information I can use to augment Wikipedia articles, and that seems to be what you're doing. It's important, though, to make sure that the book you're using is a good match for the article— they should be about precisely the same topic. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced edits again

GoutComplex, I noticed that you were blocked a few weeks ago for persistent addition of unsourced or improperly sourced content to articles. I'm disappointed to see that you seem to have been doing the exact same thing again. I reverted two edits of yours, this one on Government of the Han dynasty (adding a paragraph about "will of the people"), and this one on Mycenaean Greece, adding a bold claim about Mycenaean Greece having "the first known proto-democratic institutions". In both cases, as far as I can see, these claims were completely unsupported by the sources you cited. Another similar addition by you to Democracy ([1]) had "citation needed" tags added to it by another editor.

This will likely lead to a reimposition of blocks. @Ferret: for visibility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've reverted a couple more edits on other articles. This appears to be a very pervasive problem. Few if any of your edits seem to be correctly representing what your sources are actually saying. This is a very serious problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just come across some and reverted them. The sources do not say what you claim them to say and it's massive WP:SYNTHESIS to even think that they do. As mentioned above this is a very serious issues. If you cannot properly source what you are adding, with sources that are A) reliable and B) clearly back up the edit and claim, you WILL be blocked from editing. Since this is a long term persistent thing, the only reasonable thing an administrator can do is make it an indefinite block due to the damage your sourcing issues are causing to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Concur that our hand is being forced towards an indef block here. Several ANI discussions, warning after warning, and a short block have not corrected the issue. -- ferret (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You can do what you want, but I make my case that I had no idea any of these edits could be block-worthy. GoutComplex (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Every single month since your account was created you've had edits reverted due to sourcing issues. Every single month. The number of these reversions numbers in the hundreds, it's not just a few but in the hundreds. (I stopped counting just how many.) Since you've been informed about sourcing constantly since you created your account there are only a few possibilities here.

1) You are unwilling to abide by our sourcing policies

2) You are deliberately ignoring our sourcing policies

3) You are unable to understand our sourcing policies

Whichever it is of the above I don't think really matters at this point as the ultimate fact is you're not abiding by the sourcing policies which is causing great disruption. So whether it's disruptive editing or just plain inability I think it's time to say goodbye to your editing on Wikipedia. Looking into this more, with the timeframes and constant complete ignoring of everything that has been said to you, I'm issuing the block. If you wish to regain editing rights you're going to need to persuade an unblocking admin that you have the will and competence to follow Wikipedia's policies. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am starting the appeal process in regards to potentially being unblocked. I concur with the administrator who blocked me's idea that some of my edits did not use sourcing from credible sources. However, other and longer edits of mine such as my Taoist-related topics are mostly still around and I believe pages such as ones about Chinese religion would benefit from me being able to return to the website and edit them. I will attempt to stick to a range of topics for the foreseeable future that I have physical books, or online sources that are reliable, on said things. I will attempt to correspond with other users also editing these pages more as well. GoutComplex (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to think that because some of your edits are still around, that those outweigh your bad edits, they don't. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal and make an unblock request again. I believe I can make proper constructive improvements to some of my edits that are still around, but not properly sourced, due to me learning more about said topics and what research databases to use. I argue that the experience of readers looking for the momentous political, religious, and historical topics I edit sometimes would be improved that way. GoutComplex (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While the block was for the persistent addition of unsourced content/commentary, it was also for the lack of communication. The issue with the unsourced article content was not that you were not sufficiently knowledgable about the content or that you did not know which research databases to use. I would highly suggest reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, as an unblock request should demonstrate an understanding of what led to the block and show that the block is no longer necessary. This unblock request does not do that. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am making another unblock request. I do not want to waste the community's time on this, so I would like to address certain concerns sooner than later. If I am unblocked, I definitely want to improve some articles I made rash changes on throughout my history and stick closer to my original intent I states when joining this website, that being the improvement of non-contemporary history topics. I do want to edit a broad variety of articles, but I will definitely host more discussions about topics I feel need improvement in a constructive way that doesn't rush or waste contributors' time, rather than editing topics I might have read misinformation on. GoutComplex (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. asilvering (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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.