User talk:CathetelAngel

Welcome!
Hello, CathetelAngel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream 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.

With regards to your edit to Classification of demons, the phrase "Paradise Dragon" does not appear in Anton LeVay's Satanic Bible. Since that section is about the Satanic Bible, we kinda need to stick to (paraphrasing) what it says instead of making stuff up.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Classification of demons. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious to me that you do not actually have a copy of the Satanic Bible, so you need to stop editing that section entirely. Wikipedia is not the place to add stuff you made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Classification of demons. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for made-up fantasies, it is for professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Since it appears you're not interested of even considering that you need to look at the original source in question, that'd be reason to block you again, but this alone was sufficient reason for an indefinite block.  The only reason you were not blocked until now was because my grandfather was in the hospital.
 * The block applies to you as a person, not just to this account. I have already blocked your other account.  If you try to open another account or otherwise try to restore your nonsense to the article, it will be reverted like common vandalism, and the other account will be blocked.
 * You can try to appeal this block, but in order to do so, you're going to need to explain:
 * That you understand what you did wrong, proving it by explaining what you did wrong. (Hint: read WP:V and WP:NOR)
 * How you will avoid this behavior in the future. (You don't need to agree to a topic ban from Satanism, but going with a short-term one would give you a buffer)
 * If you try blaming anyone else, your appeal will be declined. If you volunteer to try this tutorial upon being unblocked, that will further help your case.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)