User talk:Jsarozek

July 2024

Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you recently removed content from Constantine the Great without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Remsense诉 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you that no one cares to read your opinions or editorializing on the matter; we reflect what actual reliable sources have to say about the issue. Please only add material actually backed by a reliable source, thanks. Remsense诉 21:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then you are IGNORING the current research. there is NO evidence that Constantine was anything but a member of the imperial cult. EVERY physical artifact attests to the fact. Read Candida Moss, she makes a compelling arguement AGAINST the institutionalized persecution of christians. You, Remsense, are whole-handedly spreading false information, and attempting to use bully tactics to make it stick. Jsarozek (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just have to actually cite your sources instead of assuming people want to take your word for it. Everything already in the article is sourced, you have to consider new additions in that context. Remsense诉 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring the fact that none of the statements the article makes are substantiated outside of biased sources. Jsarozek (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite your own. Nobody wants to take your word for it, full stop. Deal with it.Remsense 诉 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have no valid contemporary sources. mine are the statues, triumphal arch, and EVERY other monument Constantine, HIMSELF, left. Jsarozek (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're expecting us to trust your original interpretations of primary sources from an extremely different society than the one you live in? Sorry, we're simply not interested, because you are not qualified to do that. Have some humility. Remsense诉 22:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, the only thing i hope is to get people looking at the facts, and not accept the bastardization of culture and tradition forced on society by abrahamism as unquestionable “truth”, without evidence, as those of faith demand. Jsarozek (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then actually tell people what you're referencing. Remsense诉 00:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Germanic paganism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as stated, the christian church has sought to destroy them. Jsarozek (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to take your word for it. Cite your sources. Remsense诉 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are proof that faith destroys reason. if not for the willingly blind, such as you, the last 2,000 years of atrocities would not have occured. Jsarozek (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Origins of the American Civil War. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if the statement YOU removed were as incrotovertable as you claim, it would not be being discussed. Jsarozek (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing the meaning of already cited material. When you do that without engaging with the existing sources or adding your own to verify your claim, you are making it appear like the cited sources are saying something they do not say. That is wrong to do. Remsense诉 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people dispute incontrovertible things. See: flat earthers, antivaxers etc. I'd tell you to cite your sources when editing Wikipedia - and you must - but frankly the sources to make the claim that the US Civil War wasn't about slavery don't exist. I mean you can read the damn secession declarations of the southern states. They say "we're doing this because we want to keep owning human beings", in so many words.

Anyway, I shouldn't get lost in the weeds. If you want to edit Wikipedia articles in a constructive way, great. Do so in a manner backed up by reliable sources. If you want to introduce a mixture of fringe theories and verifiably false information then, uh, don't do that. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is entirely separate to the point (that you must cite your sources and must not introduce fringe theories on Wikipedia) but I should point out that South Carolina's declaration of secession said:

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . . For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .

You can find similar things among the other confederate states' declarations. This is just the state declaration that I, a non-american, remembered off the top of my head. And I bring it up not because it is really relevant here (even absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary your edit could be dismissed out of hand because it cited no sources) but because the claim that the US Civil War was not about slavery is such an egregious, blatant, offensive, ridiculous and disgusting act of historical revisionism that I cannot in good conscience not point out that fact. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh actually, I should mention, another issue was your use of misleading edit summaries. On this edit you said that you were just improving the "flow of [the] statement" but in fact completely reversed its meaning. Edit summaries are, as the name suggests, meant to sum up/explain your edit to other users; ones that severely misrepresent the actual nature of the edit are therefore problem-causing. Please avoid that in future. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]