User talk:Some religion scholar

not here either

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
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).
Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All claims require sources

Per the site policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, all claims require sources. That is why I reverted your edits at Little Nicky and Testament of Solomon. Claims that I am "wikistalking" you fail WP:Assume good faith, another site policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian- Do not lie (lying being a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy) by saying that me pointing out your wikistalking behavior is a violation of AGF. As you are well aware, wikistalking is an action, not a motive, so AGF has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, do not state deceptive half-truths by deliberately omitting any mention of the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia or Ignore All Rules. My edits to the Testament of Solomon and Little Nicky are truthful and valuable information, and can be verified by examining the primary sources, so those are clearly cases where IAR applies. Some religion scholar (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be verified with primary sources so easily, then secondary and tertiary sources would exist that verify the claim -- and that would prove that it's not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian- cease lying. Lying, as you know, is a violation of the civility policy. You, as an admin, are well aware of the fact that adding content without sources is not one of the gounds for blocking a user under Wikipedia's blocking policy. However, harassing another user, as you are doing to me, is one of the grounds for being blocked. Some religion scholar (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith at all times, scholar or otherwise...

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Some religion scholar. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.93.81 (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

As far as I can see, Ian Thomson has been very patient with you and has given you detailed information about site policies and practices; by way of thanks, you accuse him repeatedly of "lying" and other silliness. You misunderstand the concept of "wikistalking". The "User contributions" button is there for a reason. As the WP:HOUND policy says, many users track other users' edits for legitimate reasons. If an admin or experienced contributor sees somebody editing in a worrying way in one place, it's perfectly proper for them to click the contributions button to see the rest of that person's editing. And if they should see further problems there, it's also proper to respond or revert. It's only if it's done "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" that it's illegitimate. And you completely misunderstand WP:IAR, which is by no means a free licence to ignore all policies and guidelines. If there is any more disruptive editing and/or personal attacks from you, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for continued incivility in response to a final warning about incivility. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian- cease lying by projecting your own incivility and that of your ally Bishonen onto myself, and using your lies as a pretense to block me.[1] [2] You have now established a track record of habitual lying. Please, stop it. Some religion scholar (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:DIFFs to show where I have lied. My last post links to where you were uncivil and you were indeed blocked, so I'm not sure how you pulled out that "lying" accusation while sitting. Or go to WP:ANI and see how they react (again) when your first post out of a block is the behavior that got you blocked to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...You do know what a "lie" is, right? As I said in the talk page diff you cited, I blocked you, and the log you cited shows that I did indeed block you for 36 hours a week ago. Are you somehow trying to imply that I did not block you? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And with the repositioning, the only thing I can begin to guess is that you're trying to argue that this was somehow not uncivil. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Testament of Solomon, 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]