Welcome to Wikipedia. The you made to Cult has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jamesofur (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Torchrunner. This edit you keep on making to Cult has been reverted several times now by different editors. Please use the talk page to discuss this change. If you keep on adding it without discussion it is considered "edit warring". A good guideline to look at regarding these matter can be found here -- WP:BRD. This is just an essay but most people follow this advice at this point. So please discuss on the talk page.
- I reverted your recent talk page edits. You cannot rearrange or otherwise edit someone else's comments. You have to respond after his/her comments. Also, new posts always go at the bottom of talk pages so I moved it there. If you want to view what you wrote just use the "history" tab and go back to your edit. But this time do not disrupt Maunus' text. Leave it as it is. Add yours afterwards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Torchrunner, I would strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies before continuing to make drastic changes to current entries or starting your own. Have a look at policies concerning original research, verification and reliable sources. When you do make changes make sure you can source these changes through reliable sources and make sure that you do so at that time. When someone reverts one of your changes be prepared do discuss on the talk page as opposed to simply reverting back. Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Major Edits, no summary, no talk
I understand you think that the Great Gospel of John article needs major revision. I am not entirely in disagreement. However making major edits, deleting huge blocks of text, without edit summaries or discussion is not the way to go about it. I would strongly encourage you to discuss your ideas for improving the article on the associated talk page. Thank you and have a nice day.Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Torchrunner, you will really need to make an effort to understand what Wikipedia is trying to do and learn to conform to the rules. You have been cut slack as a new editor, and everybody needs some time to learn. But you will need to deliver soon. What you need to accept is that
- WP:RS: Wikipedia will not accept random websites you googled as "references". We want published literature, complete with author, publisher, year, and ideally ISBN and page number.
- WP:SYNTH: once you provide an acceptable source, you have some degree of freedom to represent portions of its content. But you need to make a bona fide effort to reflect its content properly, and without misrepresentation or exaggeration. You also may not draw your own conclusions from what is in the source, you need to present your source's conclusions and stick to those.
- WP:MOS: please also make an effort to produce grammatical and properly formatted text, although this is a secondary concern and people will be happy to assist you with that. But strictly speaking the burden is on you to produce acceptable content, and other users are not obliged to clean up your contributions for you.
- Torchrunner, you have persisted in making edits that violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with regard to articles on Christian mystics whose theology you appear to disagree with. I understand that theological minutae may be emotionally charged subjects however Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to vent these concerns. I am making one last request that you, please, familliarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:MOS, and WP:SOAP. If this pattern of disruptive edits continues any further I will be proceeding to WP:ANI. We welcome participation from all parties in the Wikipedia project however it is important that you understand what the project is for. It is not a forum nor is it a venue for theological debate. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Torchrunner. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Torchrunner, this type of reference () definitely does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. If you are unsure why, or you have questions over the interpretation of WP:Reliable Sources, please let me know. But please keep in mind that continued persistence of posting these type of references is starting to be disruptive. Singularity42 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)