Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Dp76764 (
talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Photophobia, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Literaturegeek |
T@1k? 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The information you added to photophobia was promotional material for a single glasses manufacturer, and this is not the place to sell glasses. Please do not reinstate this material without citing a reliable, third-party source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY for further information. Rob T Firefly ( talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Kick-Ass (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Cresix (
talk) 14:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to
Kick-Ass (film), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with
Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the
reversion of clear-cut
vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.
Cresix (
talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. --
Doniago (
talk) 16:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unsourced edits to Wikipedia articles, such as your recent removal of a significant amount of content in the
Somatotype and constitutional psychology page. I have reverted the changes you made to this page, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
SomatotypeWatchdog (
talk) 20:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia. It is considered
spamming and
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
DMacks (
talk) 15:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
User talk:Tweedle20, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Scr★pIron
IV 19:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rare-earth magnet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Scr★pIron IV 20:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Magnet. It is considered
spamming and
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
DMacks (
talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Granito diaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Magnet. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist( talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
DMacks and ScrapIronIV: I am dismayed by your harsh treatment of this newbie. DMacks, I think it is inappropriate to label an external link to a Phys.org article as spamming, especially since you reverted his removal of the same link from Rare-earth magnet. ScrapIronIV, it seems inconsistent to tag this user for edit warring at Rare-earth magnet when neither you nor DMacks made any comment on the talk page. Many of this user's edits seem quite reasonable to me, so please try to assume good faith and discuss edits calmly.
Of course, I totally agree with your condemnation of the attack on User talk:Tweedle20. RockMagnetist( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or
novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to
The Emperor's New Clothes. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.
MarnetteD|
Talk 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning 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 at
The Emperor's New Clothes.
Favonian (
talk) 12:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Favonian (
talk) 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)STOP adding the information about Asperger's. It is WP:SYN and misrepresentation of sources. Read Talk:Nerd/Archive 2#Asperger. You also violated copyright. Continue this and you are subject to a block. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Nerd.
Sundayclose (
talk) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nerd. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Sundayclose (
talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Nerd. ---
Barek (
talk •
contribs) - 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Your addition to
North American Free Trade Agreement has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing.
—
Diannaa (
talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your
IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's
policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you.
Sro23 (
talk) 02:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Sundayclose (
talk) 02:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nerd. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
Nerd, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
Murph9000 (
talk) 07:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Nerd. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose ( talk) 15:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Sundayclose (
talk) 19:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nerd. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Nerd.
Sundayclose (
talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
READ WP:MEDRS Sundayclose ( talk) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nerd. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
User talk:Sundayclose, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Sundayclose (
talk) 00:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your addition to the above subject, as the source was WP:Primary. Usually, research requires verification, which this study has not yet had. The authors appear to have a long time interest in Coenzyme Q10 and not autism, which is also a warning sign. JSR ( talk) 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
User talk:Sundayclose, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Sundayclose (
talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Coenzyme Q10 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Sundayclose ( talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your addition to
Coenzyme Q10 has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
Sundayclose (
talk) 22:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Your addition to
Coenzyme Q10 has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing.
—
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 23:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Nerd, 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.
DonIago (
talk) 18:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Jackson Pollock, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube or
Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Sundayclose ( talk) 02:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to keep the sentence in, please rewrite it to conform with a neutral point of view and see that Wikipedia is not an not an opinion site, it is merely descriptive.-- Tærkast ( Discuss) 18:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Tærkast (
Discuss) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Avatar (2009 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)I have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to this wiki in violation of our copyright policy and copyright law. You cannot resume editing until you provide a clear statement that demonstrates that you have read and understand our copyright policy and intend to follow it in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Granito diaz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
what was so bad in what I posted? why an infinite band?
Decline reason:
Your block is indefinite, not infinite. You posted material that violates copyright laws, and that is very bad. We cannot allow this to continue. In order to be unblocked, you must read and understand our copyright policy, and explain convincingly that you will not violate copyright in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Granito diaz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
/info/en/?search=Titanic_(1997_film) this is other occasion I improved Wikipedia and one of my favorite directors page, look it is still standing 5 years later, no problem there, the same magazine as source, so, I still don't understand why I get accused of copyright infringement and banned forever, for adding 2 well intended sentences Granito diaz ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looks like you don't understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE, so we can't unblock you at this time. Yamla ( talk) 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Granito diaz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
so, sorry to insist, but I just noticed that the Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 have the same segment about Quatrich being the main villain in all 4 movies, one of them has it since the beginning august 8th, no copyright infringement there, no scandal, so, I don't understand why I get such a serious ban, if that sentence I posted is the truth, and it is in the other 2 pages Granito diaz ( talk) 15:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The issue isn't "truth" but "copyright". The paragraph in Avatar 2: Not pasted from elsewhere (for all I can tell), but written in our editors' own words. Your text: Copy-pasted from here in violation of copyright. Huon ( talk) 16:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.