User talk:Zanzibar606

Welcome!

Hello, Zanzibar606, 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)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 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.
• Article content should be relevant. Just because a concept is mentioned in a book or movie does not mean the book or movie should be mentioned in that concept's article.

Your addition to The Urantia Book was reverted because the material you added did not discuss ultimatons. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your email

If you "start a section on the Urantia Book page that will have things in support of the science in the UB with references to modern science papers" I cannot block you, but I can revert your edits if they are original research, which they were last time. An academic, peer-reviewed science work unconnected to the Urantia foundation or followers of the Urantia book would have to outright state "here are scientific facts found in the Urantia book." Last time, the science source did not mention the Urantia book in any way, shape, or form. Also, you can leave messages on my talk page (just be sure to place it in a new section at the bottom, and sign your post with four tildes or ~~~~). I actually check my talk page more often than my email. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you are ignoring the messages above. Really not a good idea, especially now you've been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I need a scientist to write in a peer-reviewed paper that the "dark islands" are references to black holes when anyone can read the UB text and see that for themselves? Are you telling me that reading the paragraph on the "Dark Islands of Space" in Paper 15... you do not think they are talking about black holes? Have you read that section? What else would they be talking about?

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Urantia Book shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)