User talk:ChrislamicLDS

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Davidic line, 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". where you added text[1] but marked it as minor. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Uziel

As I have explained before, we only accept professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. We do not use blogs as sources. The only acceptable source in Uziel (angel) was Oliver and James's "Angels A to Z." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

God in Mormonism

added a link pointing to Godhead

Peleg

added a link pointing to Enoch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources, original research, and minor edits, again

As has been explained repeatedly, Wikipedia relies on professionally published mainstream academic sources and does not use original research (which includes editor interpretation of primary sources). In other words, stick to sources that are published by university presses or by publishers who specialize in academic works. Quit picking ministry websites and similarly biased sources. Quit citing primary sources (for example, a speech by Warren Jeffs is a primary source for his beliefs). Also, never cite Youtube -- videos on there are self-published sources and so fail our reliable sourcing guidelines.

And quit marking edits as minor unless they fall under the standards given at Help:Minor edit. In fact, it would probably be best if you just stop marking any edits as minor for now. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clearer: sites like bible.ca, fairmormon.org, exmormon.org, beliefmap.org, mormondna.org, mrm.org, mormonfundamentalism.com, or any other site that tries to tell the reader what religion they should believe or not believe in -- are not reliable. You need to stick to the sorts of sources published by universities or written by university professors. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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) 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you not only appear incapable of understanding that blogs, primary sources, and so on are unacceptable, but you also want to dishonestly sneak around with sockpuppets to avoid trouble, it's pretty clear that you either are incapable or have no desire to operate by this community's standards in good faith.

If you show that you understand what sources are acceptable and which are not, you might be unblocked.

Note that this block applies to you as a person: if you try to edit with another account or IP address, the block on this account will be made permanent and any other edits you do (even if they're right!) will be treated as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References I'm Using Your Using As Well

I have found numerous times that references like fairmormon.org to be used for references that were acceptable on certain Wikipedia sites which makes your case notwithstanding. Other times I find YouTube as a reference. That is hypocritical. But I have used certain references that just basic legit book/journal references that didn't get accepted. That is something I can't understand. I can't wish to appeal if I can't be allowed to make references that are being allowed for other sites even if they are standard references they somehow become a problem for you. Now I don't know about you but I personally feel I'm getting discriminated against. Now if there was any way we can work something out to resolve this issue please write me back.

If you truly believe I have discriminated against you, then you could try following the directions left in the standard block notice above and have another admin review your case. Or you could continue to prove my point about you not being able to follow simple directions.

More competent editors can cite polemic sites such as fairmormon.org or selected videos on Youtube, provided doing so does not contradict policies and guidelines such as WP:PRIMARY, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:No original research. You've regularly shown that you are not capable of properly handling such sources, which is why you were asked kindly and repeatedly to stop, then given clear instructions to stop. There are also instances were less competent editors have mistakenly cited Youtube where they should not have and more responsible editors have yet to remove said sources -- but those mistakes do not excuse your continued failure to even acknowledge basic directions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that you're still engaging in sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not getting the point though even if I avoid blogs I'm getting simple references like journals removed from my editing. That is where it makes things confusing. Do you label it as original? Also can I use websites like abcnews.go.com, buzzfeed.com, or anything like it for references?

Whatever it is you are calling "journals" haven't been academic journals. You've been citing polemic websites, and your Special:Contributions/ChrislamicLDS contributions page is proof enough of that. You don't have a point, you appear to be either confused or unaware that all your edits are public record and that claims of having cited journals can be easily checked. Oh, and continuing to complain here instead of following the instructions in the block notice is either proving my point that you can't follow directions, or else demonstrating that on some level, you accept it's a fair cop but don't want to lose face. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know if you’re still around, socking away, but if you are, please don’t write like this anymore. It suggests you don’t know what we’re doing here or how journalism and websites work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:607F:F8F1:F170:3C14:BB0C:FC71 (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

"Messiah ben David (Christianity)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Messiah ben David (Christianity). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 11#Messiah ben David (Christianity) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)