User talk:Stetson7

Welcome!

Hello, Stetson7, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
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We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from 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.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing:

Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.

Also, the material you add to articles needs to be immediately relevant. What you're adding, aside from being unsourced, doesn't match the rest of the article contents at all. Please go to Talk:Waldensians, click "New section" at the top of the page, and explain why that material is at all relevant, and present your source there. Secondary sources for this article would be modern histories that look through a number of historical documents and comment on them. After you got rid of the Jewish Encyclopedia, all you cited were primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veil of Veronica

I removed your "recent discovery" addition since you did not provide a reliable source for it. Did you read the note above which says "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)." Then your additions will be more encyclopedic. Thanks! Edison (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Waldensians, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The EB does not say that the Waldensians predate Waldo. To pretend that the EB says that is either dishonest or incompetent. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead of edit warring before I report you to the administrators. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Waldensians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
This warning covers all edits made by you, whether you are logged in at the time or not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for socking with IPs, as you did at Waldensians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Waldensians, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have only just come off a 72-hour block, and that is your first contribution to the same discussion that got you blocked in the first place...? Come on. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Shroud of Turin. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shroud of Turin, you may be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]