Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, Tasbian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
—Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 22:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Your recent changes
editOut of all the above links, please pay special attention to WP:NPOV and stop adding the word "controversial" to articles that do not describe controversial subjects.UBER (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- They're all controversial subjects, otherwise those "movements" or schools of thought wouldn't have arisen.Tasbian (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are not, but either way your talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss these issues. If you insist on putting those labels in there, I advise you to first visit the article talk pages and try to gain consensus for your proposed changes. Thank you.UBER (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Women voting, just par example, is extremely controversial particularly when those women have had existing male guardians. It's not universial & never was. Ever heard the popular slogan "why would women need votes when they already have husbands?"? Of course we have. And if vaccination isn't controversial, why'd it even admit as much in the article lead before I ever had anything to do with it? Well?? So you wan't to label it as opinionation and you respond with opinionation of your own just above. Unbeleevabull. First think then put mouth in gear, bro.Tasbian (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm done here. My last piece of advice to you is to seriously take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the above thread.UBER (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Women voting, just par example, is extremely controversial particularly when those women have had existing male guardians. It's not universial & never was. Ever heard the popular slogan "why would women need votes when they already have husbands?"? Of course we have. And if vaccination isn't controversial, why'd it even admit as much in the article lead before I ever had anything to do with it? Well?? So you wan't to label it as opinionation and you respond with opinionation of your own just above. Unbeleevabull. First think then put mouth in gear, bro.Tasbian (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are not, but either way your talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss these issues. If you insist on putting those labels in there, I advise you to first visit the article talk pages and try to gain consensus for your proposed changes. Thank you.UBER (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
edit
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Purification Rundown, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Notice
editPlease be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, and the various applicable remedies in that case. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Scientology and abortion. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
AE
editPlease see WP:AE regarding WP:ARBSCI and your behavior on related articles after warning. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)- In addition, you are hereby notified that
- (i) remedy 4 of the Scientology arbitration case authorizes uninvolved administrators to ban an editor from editing the Scientology subject area if their presence is disruptive.
- (ii) I consider those edits cited in the recent AE complaint that you were the subject of to be disruptive. As such, if you continue editing in this manner, I will place a topic ban. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- As it has been confirmed at Sockpuppet Investigations that you evaded this block for most of its duration, you have been reblocked for 1 month. Orderinchaos 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)