User talk:Mentious

It is very bad etiquette to edit previous conversations. If you have new thoughts they belong under a new comment. Consider the previous comments as a record for others to read through. Cuñado - Talk 23:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Mentious, if you're going to be an active contributor you'll need to refer to these Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

General[edit]

Editing[edit]

Wikepedia policies and guidelines[edit]

It'll also help if you can focus your discussions to the particular pages where they apply. Please note, Wikipedia isn't a blog or discussion group. If you have something to say — and can back it up with a source — then it goes in. If you need to vent, this isn't the place. MARussellPESE 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:JLSuitSmileGlasses1small.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:JLSuitSmileGlasses1small.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making 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. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted more than three times, I'll be reporting you to the administors. -- 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

As per Wikipedia policy, statements was be referenced by reliable sources. You cannot make your own interpretation of primary religious material, translation or otherwise, unless you have a reliable secondary source that makes the same interpretation; that is original research and not allowed. Also statements that are sourced by reliable sources should not be changed if you don't agree with them. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sourcing[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors who ask you for secondary sourcing (which is Wikipedia policy) for your edits. Citing primary religious texts as authority is problematic, as interpretation of text varies between doctrines in every religion. Please also remember to assume good faith of other contributors. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]