User talk:Ben Q Nunn

Welcome!

Hello, Ben Q Nunn, 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) 15:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
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).
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.

Your addition to Jesuism was reverted because the first source cited (at least the article proper) did not support your addition at all, the second article (a forum post) completely failed our reliable sourcing guidelines, the creed does not appear to be noteworthy (or verifiable in its existence), the addition of the whole creed was undue and kinda preachy. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jesuism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. St Anselm (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Jesuism

Stop it. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for you to preach from. This science teacher, whoever he is, is not notable, nor is his personal beliefs. If you continue to add this, and continue to refuse to discuss anything with other editors, you will likely be blocked by the admins. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Ian's page about communication for you.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message: you were not just deleted twice without explanation, there was a rather clear message left above in "A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful" that explained why the exact same edit was removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do i reply here? it seems an odd place to do it! why can't wikipedia be more user friendly for the first-time user? I'm intrigued that 3 editors have seen fit to comment on my little contribution to the JESUISM page while rejecting it .OK here are some comments (a) where -please- do you think I could post my (admittedly polemical) contribution to religious debate (outside wiki of course) (b)what's a barnstar? (c) why send me an email that can't be replied to? (d) the only chance i'll find your reply is if you email it to me. Cheers, Ben. do i click "save page" now? i'll try.

In response to your feedback

To the right of each user name is the word 'talk'. If you click that link you will be taken to that user's talk page wher you can leave a message.

You should read through tge tutorial for more information.

Ariconte (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]