User talk:A Frantic Turtle

This is A Frantic Turtle's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Thanks for clarifying, I would have this conversation in good faith. I don't understand how the guidelines for source work, as at the end of the day, all sources come from someone's personal experiences, which are prohibited. For example, at some point in time, the Bible was written by personal experiences. People use this as a "source" all the time, and it's quoted more than any other book. I am seeking clarification on what you would deem a "source" to be, since they are all personal experiences at the end of the day, everything on this site, the cumulative knowledge, are all personal experiences. So what constitutes a source? How does this pertain to acquiring new information? Thanks in advance. NFNITI (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read the message I left you on your talk page, you'll find some links in it that explain what reliable sources are, how Wikipedia works by verifiability, not truth, and how to cite the sources you're using for what you write. Your argument that sources don't apply to you, or don't apply in this case, or don't apply ever, that you make above is interesting. It will get you nowhere. Sorry. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, of course I believe we are getting somewhere! In the link you provided it says Wikipedia "should" be based on published sources, not that it "must be". The follow up line says if no reliable sources can be found, Wikipedia "should" not have an article about it, not that it cannot have new information.

For example, the very first time a theoretical physicist discovered "Black holes" may exist, they had to tell people about it without using any sources whatsoever.

I imagine the first person discussing "Black Holes" felt pushback from their peers as well, denial, anger, but eventually it became an accepted concept that many people recognize today.

The best sources I can site for Universalism, are the many passages within The Bible itself that refer to helping the poor, and that in helping the poor you Honor God.

Universalism is a bastion for helping the poor, that is referenced in The Bible as an exalted act. So I would use that as a source to help outline what I am trying to provide information on for this encyclopedia.

Hopefully, we can sort through this information together and find the right answer, in good Faith.

Thanks again. NFNITI (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments against the very basis of how Wikipedia works — by using sources — and lawyering over the exact wording of our policies is interesting but will ultimately fail for obvious reasons.

Your plan to quote passages of your bible in order to create a synthesis that you can put in the article would be in breach of our rules on original research — specifically, that we don't allow it — and will thus also fail. Sorry. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 11:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

why are you remove my change? Donaldhinton (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There two issues with the two changes you made. You changed the name of the founder to Dipak Dandodara without providing a source for the change of name (the existing name was sourced correctly). You also linked to a Wikipedia article using an external link rather than a wikilink, which isn't something we do. I'll drop you a welcome message on your talk page with some helpful links to how Wikipedia works. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 10:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]