Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Sein und Zeit. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! MPS1992 ( talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.-- Moxy ( talk) 22:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Adolf Hitler, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
FlightTime. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you
unlinked one or more
redlinks from
Adolf Hitler. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.
In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited,-- Moxy ( talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Themes in Nazi propaganda into
Scientific racism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Moxy (
talk)
20:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not edit archived discussions, as you did at Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 19. If you wish to address a topic, please start a new discussion on the article talk page (in this case, Talk:Joseph Stalin). Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sein und Zeit: I thought I should tell you a couple of things since you have not been editing on Wikipedia that long, yet. First, secondary WP:RS sources should be used and cited over primary sources; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". They are more WP:NPOV and considered more objective. See: WP:PRIMARY. Second, adding large sections quoted directly from sources, such as books, is frowned upon due to copyright reasons. So please consider these things when making additions and enjoy editing herein. Thanks, Kierzek ( talk) 19:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sein und Zeit, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
Adolf Hitler have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Moxy ( talk) 20:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sein und Zeit (Heidegger fan I presume). When contributing to pages that use the harv reference style as you recently did at Operation Barbarossa, please cite your sources so that they are consistent with the rest of the page. For your convenience, I converted your most recent edit reference to the Calvin College webpage accordingly. Compare the Online sources on that page and how they look in the edit mode for examples when referencing online sources in the future. Do likewise for the text edits as well. If a hodge-podge of citations styles appear on a page, Wiki-editors strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with and use the harv reference style being used on this page (both in-line citations and the bibliography) for Wiki-articles that are historical in nomenclature. Your cooperation is appreciated and happy editing. -- Obenritter ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting to know others are experiencing the same thing. [1] [2] [3] [qub/x q;otta] ▤ ▧ 01:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Sein und Zeit. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! MPS1992 ( talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.-- Moxy ( talk) 22:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Adolf Hitler, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
FlightTime. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you
unlinked one or more
redlinks from
Adolf Hitler. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.
In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited,-- Moxy ( talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Themes in Nazi propaganda into
Scientific racism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa (
talk)
14:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
Moxy (
talk)
20:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not edit archived discussions, as you did at Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 19. If you wish to address a topic, please start a new discussion on the article talk page (in this case, Talk:Joseph Stalin). Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sein und Zeit: I thought I should tell you a couple of things since you have not been editing on Wikipedia that long, yet. First, secondary WP:RS sources should be used and cited over primary sources; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". They are more WP:NPOV and considered more objective. See: WP:PRIMARY. Second, adding large sections quoted directly from sources, such as books, is frowned upon due to copyright reasons. So please consider these things when making additions and enjoy editing herein. Thanks, Kierzek ( talk) 19:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sein und Zeit, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
Adolf Hitler have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Moxy ( talk) 20:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Sein und Zeit (Heidegger fan I presume). When contributing to pages that use the harv reference style as you recently did at Operation Barbarossa, please cite your sources so that they are consistent with the rest of the page. For your convenience, I converted your most recent edit reference to the Calvin College webpage accordingly. Compare the Online sources on that page and how they look in the edit mode for examples when referencing online sources in the future. Do likewise for the text edits as well. If a hodge-podge of citations styles appear on a page, Wiki-editors strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with and use the harv reference style being used on this page (both in-line citations and the bibliography) for Wiki-articles that are historical in nomenclature. Your cooperation is appreciated and happy editing. -- Obenritter ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting to know others are experiencing the same thing. [1] [2] [3] [qub/x q;otta] ▤ ▧ 01:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.