User talk:Jasonsteven1212

Welcome!

Hello, Jasonsteven1212, 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) 23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Minor edits are those that add or remove little content, and mainly consists of undoing undeniable vandalism or fixing grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.
"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We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.
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) 23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Demonology, 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.

Also, your source fails WP:Identifying reliable sources, and "In fact as King James of England explicitly states in his dialectic on witchcraft, the Demonically possessed are the most accute cases of sickness to practicioners in witchcraft who were popularly executed for their heretic crime" is just a poorly written sentence. Was King James stating that to practitioners of witchcraft, or was he saying that the demonically possessed are sick to practitioners of witchcraft? Did they all just commit one single collective crime (instead of multiple crimes)? "Acute" and "practitioners" are misspelled, too. Please, drop the pretentious attitude, and pay attention to suggestions instead of flippantly suggesting I go get a cigarette (get your own bloody cancer and learn to write). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Daemonologie has been reverted.
Your edit here to Daemonologie was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://greatbrittania.blogspot.com.au/p/book-of-james.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]