User talk:Spread knowledge

Welcome

Hello, Spread knowledge not ignorance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christos

Hey! I noticed you are starting to edit the page Historical Jesus. A couple of things you should know about editing in this area; referencing the Bible and not a third party source counts as original research, and so not allowed unfortunately (WP:OR)... to reference statements like "or see them as faked by Jesus himself, evidently a problem at the time" need to get their credentials from a reliable source (WP:RS). I realise that a lot of the rest of the article doesn't live up to this... you can help fix that if you like! You also might want to consider reading WP:NOT to get the idea of the kind of tone that articles need to take, whatever your personal views on a subject ("evidently a problem" indeed, I agree, but wikipedia can't say that! Something like "considered to be a problem", or just leaving out that bit of the sentence and getting in a really nice reference). Thanks! Happy editing =) Gorton k (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello SKNI. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've gone through your contributions to a number of articles, and found some serious problems, which violate policies or style guidelines we have on wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss these problems in more depth on each article's talk page, but I'd like you to first read over WP:BRD to understand why that process is necessary. Feel free to start posting to the talk page after that, and I'd be happy to expand and perhaps help you incorporate some of your proposals into the article text. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you compare my final edit with the page on Historical Jesus before I added anything. I added valuable tables of data and many references. I will leave it entirely in your hands if you want to delete any specific sentences. My edits on the Historical Jesus page are now complete except for maybe some references at a later date. Good luck with editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Above reply copied from my talk page.) There certainly may be useful information contained in your edits that would be helpful to add to the article, and references are always appreciated. However, text like the following is almost never acceptable in our articles:

(as shown by persistent vandalism to this page, for example.)

Some scholars make the false claim that...

If you have not read the bible, you will probably discover that Hinduism, and Buddhism are closer to your own beliefs

There was quite a bit of that sort of commentary, largely unsourced, in a number of your edits. That's ok! It takes some time to get used to wikipedia policies and style guidelines - we do things a little differently around here than you may be used to. However, to incorporate any of the "good bits" into the article without those parts, we'd have to do a little work to separate them all out. I, and other editors, can help with that, but the first step is to take your concerns about the article to the article's talk page for discussion. If you stay around for long enough, you'll find that wikipedia is a highly collaborative environment, which is a good thing. Collaboration on content starts on the talk page, so that's really the best place for this discussion. Thanks again for your contributions, and hopefully I'll see you over there. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversions on Historical Jesus

Dear "Spread knowledge not ignorance"! Feel encouraged in your tough job of keeping the article serious. I am happy that you do that job! I am every day on the page and sometimes imagine how emotionally stressing it must be to tell people not to make war but to stick to fair rules. Be assured of my support. Many read the article.
Inawe 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article New Atheism, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at New Atheism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown

Hello Spread knowledge. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Willa Brown and Kate Brown".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Willa Brown and Kate Brown}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]