Welcome : ) Lkmen (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add sections that are unsupported by reliable sources. Mikenorton (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's interpretation of a religious text is never going to be accepted as a reliable source, so please stop adding it. Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough! If you keep on re-adding this material then you will eventually be blocked. Mikenorton (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do produce a section to go in this article by working on it in your user space as suggested by Mike Cline below, it would be very helpful to start by proposing it on the article talk page first, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

Hello, Lkmen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone. However, if that is a topic you'd like to work on, I would suggest drafting an article in your user space, something like Religions and Yellowstone and flesh it out with proper sourcing, etc. Working on draft articles in your user space (especially if they are likely to be contentious) is a far more productive way to work in WP. There are many editors who will help you become a productive Wikipedian if you want to be. I know from experience that trying to force contentious content into articles, especially one as popular and visible as Yellowstone is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editing community against you--something I sincerely hope you want to avoid. The community is here to help you. Let me know if I can help in anyway. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you very much : ).

You have said, "I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone.".

Why not?! I think there isn't any rule in WP against such a thing. It is very informative section for any reader. It is important for any reader about Yellowstone to know what religions or cultures say about it. I supported that section by reliable sources for anyone wants to know what Islam says about Yellowstone by supporting it with Qur'an. And Qur'an is a reliable source in WP about the view of Islam on any subject, ether it is a geographical subject or something else. So, I hope you will help WP by bringing that section back and protecting it against any vandalism if you can do so. Or you may talk to someone who can. I am waiting for your help for WP. Have a nice day. : ) Lkmen (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LK-a couple of thoughts. 1) It's counter productive to call someone's good faith efforts WP:agf to improve an article (ie reverting your edits) vandalism. Think twice before making that claim. 2) please read WP:npov carefully. I am not going to debate whether Islam and yellowstone can be reliably sourced, but I will contend that it's a topic that will violate undue weight of our NPOV policy when seen in the light of the yellowstone article and is unlikely to be allowed to remain. There are 1,000s of tidbits of content that could be added to article, but aren't because of undue weight. Again, please consider drafting an independent article on the subject, and if it can pass muster can surely be linked to the main article. Mike Cline (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LK

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yellowstone National Park, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.Mikenorton (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome. My edits to Yellowstone National Park are NOT original research. My edits have a reliable source. Thank you. Lkmen (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LK you need to read the whole of WP:RS. Primary sources, such as the Qu'ran, can only be used with great care and anything at all controversial (such as this) needs a secondary source. Links to other wikis are explicitly not allowed and the same can be said for youtube videos. Therefore you do not have reliable sources for the content that you are trying to add. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Yellowstone National Park. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistent addition of the same controversial Islamic content to the Yellowstone article is not constructive. At least two editors do not believe the content should be added to the article and have graciously suggested alternatives to you for exploring ways for the community to review and decide if the content is appropriate for the Yellowstone article. Your persistence in re-adding the deleted content will not change the controversial nature of the content and it will be removed until such time that the wider community accepts it. Please be mindful that there are consequences for persistent edit waring, consequences I trust you don't want to endure. Please take advantage of previous suggestions and either discuss the controversial content on the article's talk page or draft an article in your user space before adding the content to the article again. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yellowstone National Park. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]