User talk:R2d212345

Welcome!

Hello, R2d212345, 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:

You may also want to take 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
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).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Also, make sure your edit summaries actually have something to do with your edits. For example, this edit was not fixing a typo. That your edit summary said "fixed typo" indicates that you need to read Typographical error (that is what "typo" means) or else need to read our policy on censorship and start editing honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop lying in your edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did not fix a misspelled word. This edit was not simply rearranging or rephrasing the sentence, but introducing criticism into the wrong part of the article. In case you did not know, a synopsis is a summary of a work's contents -- not the place to discuss other people's evaluation of it.

Then there's this edit, where instead of fixing awkward wording you simply added your own bias on the topic; and this edit, where you again claimed to be fixing the sentence structure but instead of rearranging or rephrasing you stuck in an undeniable biased statement.

Pretty much all of your edit summaries have been lies. Last time I checked, Islam does not encourage lying. If you keep lying in your edit summaries, I will have to assume that you are not here to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2d212345. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]