Please remember to include reliable sources for any material you add to Wikipedia articles. -- John ( talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing. --
John (
talk)
12:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Govgovgov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hello, I see you're fairly new at editing on Wikipedia. I wanted to swing by and inform you that each fact presented in the article must have a reliable source. The information you added is not in the reference provided. Adding information that you think is true or even know to be true must still be cited immediately after the statement. Otherwise, it may be considered original research, which is not allowed in articles. It includes your own personal analysis as well. You cannot assume that editors will read all other references and know that what you added is verified, because that's unreasonable and cause for removal.
A citation provided in articles can be used more than once, if it supports a statement of fact that you're adding, in this case I'm referring to your addition of what critics have claimed about Oprah's school in South Africa. If there is indeed a reference that can be used, please do so, otherwise the information cannot be used because it is not in keeping with
properly sourcing biographies of living people. Also, for future reference, it is good practice to use the
article talk page and discuss before undoing edits more than once when someone has given a decent explanation as to why they reverted your edits, to not
edit war or cause
disruption. Thanks.
Teammm
talk
email
03:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Be careful about editing identifying characteristics about groups like you did on CPAC's article. GOProud basically has the choice of what to call itself, and LGBT may be preferred over gay. Andrew 327 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The addition has been reverted per WP:BRD, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and reach a consensus before attempting to add the content again. Adding the content again maybe considered engaging in an edit war even if you have the best of intentions. Furthermore, further reverting reversions may lead you to the three reversions wall which may cause you to be blocked from editing for a brief period. To avoid this it is better to talk to others civilly about the matter and find out why others object to the content in the lead of the article, and other concerns that they may have.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
IRWolfie-. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
02:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the
sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. You are addressing a worldwide audience, please be aware that "retarded" is considered offensive and perhaps chose something different next time.
Coffeepusher (
talk)
15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account, which contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (
talk)
00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
I'm impressed with the methods used to discover that this account is a sock. What I'm less impressed by is the Butterbumps investigation. That's not my account and I was very surprised that it was declared my sock, based on such weak evidence. I just thought I should say that, as I don't like mistakes, even in a meaningless archive. Also, it seems to be quite a mean email and I think if some tools (like CheckUser) are available to discover its authorship then they should be used. Govgovgov ( talk) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to include reliable sources for any material you add to Wikipedia articles. -- John ( talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, you may be
blocked from editing. --
John (
talk)
12:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Govgovgov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hello, I see you're fairly new at editing on Wikipedia. I wanted to swing by and inform you that each fact presented in the article must have a reliable source. The information you added is not in the reference provided. Adding information that you think is true or even know to be true must still be cited immediately after the statement. Otherwise, it may be considered original research, which is not allowed in articles. It includes your own personal analysis as well. You cannot assume that editors will read all other references and know that what you added is verified, because that's unreasonable and cause for removal.
A citation provided in articles can be used more than once, if it supports a statement of fact that you're adding, in this case I'm referring to your addition of what critics have claimed about Oprah's school in South Africa. If there is indeed a reference that can be used, please do so, otherwise the information cannot be used because it is not in keeping with
properly sourcing biographies of living people. Also, for future reference, it is good practice to use the
article talk page and discuss before undoing edits more than once when someone has given a decent explanation as to why they reverted your edits, to not
edit war or cause
disruption. Thanks.
Teammm
talk
email
03:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Be careful about editing identifying characteristics about groups like you did on CPAC's article. GOProud basically has the choice of what to call itself, and LGBT may be preferred over gay. Andrew 327 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The addition has been reverted per WP:BRD, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and reach a consensus before attempting to add the content again. Adding the content again maybe considered engaging in an edit war even if you have the best of intentions. Furthermore, further reverting reversions may lead you to the three reversions wall which may cause you to be blocked from editing for a brief period. To avoid this it is better to talk to others civilly about the matter and find out why others object to the content in the lead of the article, and other concerns that they may have.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
IRWolfie-. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
02:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the
sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. You are addressing a worldwide audience, please be aware that "retarded" is considered offensive and perhaps chose something different next time.
Coffeepusher (
talk)
15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account, which contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (
talk)
00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
I'm impressed with the methods used to discover that this account is a sock. What I'm less impressed by is the Butterbumps investigation. That's not my account and I was very surprised that it was declared my sock, based on such weak evidence. I just thought I should say that, as I don't like mistakes, even in a meaningless archive. Also, it seems to be quite a mean email and I think if some tools (like CheckUser) are available to discover its authorship then they should be used. Govgovgov ( talk) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)