User talk:Ksshd

May 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Baphomet, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Baphomet. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * If your edits are undone (reverted), go to the article's talk page to discuss them.
 * Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert changes to a page more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.

Your edits to Baphomet have been reverted because they appear to constitute original research using some fringe sources. Do not revert again. Go to the article's talk page and start a new discussion section there and wait until there is a consensus to restore the material. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Your recent editing history at Baphomet 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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) 15:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Baphomet. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 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:. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * When your block expires, you need to address the problems raised at Talk:Baphomet, particularly the fundamental issues that your claims and your sources are barely related, and that your sources are often pretty low quality.
 * If you keep trying to add the material without discussing it, you're just going to be blocked again, eventually leading to an indefinite block.
 * Blocks apply to the person, not just the account. If you tried to create another account (really bad idea), both that and this account would be indefinitely blocked and any future actions taken by you on this site will be treated like vandalism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
To appeal your block, you will need to log in to your original account and appeal the block there. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)