User talk:Pmhong

Welcome!
Hello, Pmhong, 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) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

 * "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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edits to Waldensians have been reverted, because the Waldensians themselves and all of secular academia agree that the Waldensians started with Peter Waldo. It's only a fringe group of sectarian propagandists who insist otherwise for the express purpose of trying to claim Catholic-style Apostolic succession for the Protestant church.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Waldensians 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) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Ian.thomson. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at User talk:Ian.thomson. 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:. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)