User talk:Balantrodach

Welcome!

Hello, Balantrodach, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research.
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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edits

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scottish Knights Templar. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Sannhet (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, nor is it a newswire service, nor is it an advertising outlet. Sannhet (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Sannhet (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Block

Please do not edit Scottish Knights Templar again until further notice from an administrator, or else your account may be blocked. This edit , as well as your general editing history, suggests that you are engaged in WP:COI editing in a manner that is impermissible. Wikipedia is a not a place to promote an organization, regardless of the merits. You may place suggested edits on the article talk page and an uninvolved editor may consider them for inclusion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revoking your topic ban, since it is not appropriate to topic ban someone for simply having a conflict of interest, and besides, an administrator cannot hand them out unilaterally anyway. However, please observe WP:BRD and take any editing disputes to the discussion page, because you can be blocked for edit-warring. If your editing does present a conflict of interest, it would serve you well to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest first. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan doesn't have the authority to reverse a warning I have given. She doesn't even have a user page, so I doubt very much she is an administrator. In any case, administrators should not reverse decisions of another administrator without attempting communication first. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administartor, but as I have pointed out administartors do not have the authority to topic ban an editor. Jehochman is entitled to warn you (and block you) for edit-warring, but not to topic ban you. His sanction carries no authority in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, the construction is "Dear editor, you could be blocked right now, but I am going to suspend taking that action as long as you don't edit this article." That's what I'm saying and the effect is identical to a topic ban. Please let the editor speak for themselves if they want to explain their action and say why they should be allowed to edit the article further. I'm much more interested in what they have to say than interlocutors who may not be familiar with the history of trouble with this article. Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]