User talk:206.253.146.131

March 2015
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Behemoth. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Also:
 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.  As far as Wikipedia and mainstream science are concerned, evolution has not been disproven, and creation science is regarded as a WP:FRINGE pseudoscience.
 * 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.
 * 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).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Behemoth, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Behemoth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Behemoth. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  S warm...   &mdash;X&mdash;  16:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.