Welcome!
Hello, Goramon, 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:
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!
Hi, you are continuing to insert your edits into Anglo-Celtic Australian. It is against policy to add original research into articles (see WP:OR). We're also started discussing on the Talk page - please continue to discuss on Talk page before making these edits again. Please assume good faith - we all want a better article. Also, perhaps the point you are making is valid, but it does not appear that it is being understood - spending a little more time on the Talk page to explain might help to resolve the issue. Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Anglo-Celtic Australian. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
HighKing (
talk)
16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to
Anglo-Celtic Australian, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been asked to discuss before changing the article against concensus. Continuing to tendentiously edit the article in this fashion is highly disruptive. --
HighKing (
talk)
23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See here -- HighKing ( talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Caucasian race. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Dougweller (
talk)
13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Stormfront (website). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Verbal
chat
09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring on user talk pages doesn't contribute to a collegial environment, shows a lack of good faith, and is against policy; see WP:UP. Consider this a further warning. Verbal chat 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Having multiple accounts to edit war in similar topics without getting blocked is against the sock puppet policy. I have blocked User:Zzmang indefinitely and your account for one week. Brandon ( talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you really disputing that Zzmang is your account? Brandon ( talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:
1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.
2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded ( User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.
Thanks in advance. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Goramon, 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:
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!
Hi, you are continuing to insert your edits into Anglo-Celtic Australian. It is against policy to add original research into articles (see WP:OR). We're also started discussing on the Talk page - please continue to discuss on Talk page before making these edits again. Please assume good faith - we all want a better article. Also, perhaps the point you are making is valid, but it does not appear that it is being understood - spending a little more time on the Talk page to explain might help to resolve the issue. Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Anglo-Celtic Australian. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. --
HighKing (
talk)
16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to
Anglo-Celtic Australian, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been asked to discuss before changing the article against concensus. Continuing to tendentiously edit the article in this fashion is highly disruptive. --
HighKing (
talk)
23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See here -- HighKing ( talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Caucasian race. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Dougweller (
talk)
13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Stormfront (website). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Verbal
chat
09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring on user talk pages doesn't contribute to a collegial environment, shows a lack of good faith, and is against policy; see WP:UP. Consider this a further warning. Verbal chat 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Having multiple accounts to edit war in similar topics without getting blocked is against the sock puppet policy. I have blocked User:Zzmang indefinitely and your account for one week. Brandon ( talk) 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you really disputing that Zzmang is your account? Brandon ( talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I’m posting this comment on the discussion pages of several users who were involved in editing the article Race and crime before it was merged into Anthropological criminology, to let all of you know that I’m working on recreating the Race and crime article. My current draft for it can be found here. I would appreciate help from any of you with two things related to this:
1: RegentsPark, the admin who protected the redirect from Race and crime to Anthropological criminology, has suggested that the statistical information in this article should be better-integrated into the portion of it that discusses how these statistics can be interpreted. I would appreciate help with improving this aspect of the article, or any other aspects of it that you think could be improved.
2: RegentsPark has let me know here that he won’t be willing to unprotect the article himself, no matter how much it’s improved, so if I would like it to be unprotected I should propose this at WP:RFPP. I’ve proposed there that it be unprotected, but the admin who responded ( User:Camaron) stated that without RegentsPark’s approval, I would need to first obtain a consensus that the article should be recreated. If you think the article does not require any additional improvements, and is good enough to be recreated in its current state, I would appreciate you making your opinion about this known on the draft’s discussion page, so that we can begin to create a consensus for this.
Thanks in advance. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)