User talk:Psychologicaloric

Welcome!

Hello, Psychologicaloric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wahhabi movement‎ without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. What was particularly bad was that your deletions put text next to a citation, which was for something else. I guess your edits were a mistake, but do not worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Zoroastrianism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please also read our guidelines on reliable sources, as your edits removed information sourced to what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. We are not concerned with what is existentially true or diabolically false, but what is commonly and accurately sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. To downplay Zoroastrianism's influence on the Abrahamic religions as merely an allegation by Penguin's Dictionary of Religion, instead of a summary of what academia has found is an inaccurate representation of what the source states. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Zoroastrianism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^You are making false allegations, but go ahead and block me from editing if you want to. I can't stop you.

Your recent editing history at Zoroastrianism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV-pushing by Psychologicaloric. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]