User talk:Agirlwithnoname02

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Agirlwithnoname02. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Appoorva Muralinath. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Appoorva Muralinath, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically in this edit you changed the case of a section title. Section titles follow sentence case - where only the first word is capitalized unless they are proper nouns. In the same edit you also added bold to text where it is not appropriate per MOS:BOLD. I understand that this a lot of detail and not expected to be known by new editors. However I had already fixed these issues and you reintroduced them. You do not own the article, other editors have the same ability to make changes as you. Gab4gab (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Appoorva Muralinath, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agirlwithnoname02, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Agirlwithnoname02! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Original research

Hello again Agirlwithnoname02, your recent edits of Appoorva Muralinath appear to have added original research. For Wikipedia that is content based on information you have gained from sources other than published material. Wikipedia has a 'no original research' policy. Because of this I will be removing content from the article that is not supported by the current sources. You can re-add challenged material but you have the burden of providing in-line citations that support whatever content you restore. I'm happy to assist you if you need any help adding citations. You can reply to me here, on my talk page or at the article talk page. See WP:OR for further information on the 'no original research' policy. Gab4gab (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I see that with this edit you have restored content I challenged as unsourced original research. You did not provide the necessary in-line citations I told you about just above. Your edit summary said 'this is important.' I think it's important that as editors we try to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'll give you the opportunity to revert your own edit because you didn't follow the policy and it would be a show of good faith on your part. I've tried to provide you with explanations for why I've made my edits and the issues with some of yours based on policy. You haven't responded here or on the article talk page. Repeated edits to restore an editors preferred version of an article can be considered disruptive or edit warring and could result in the editor being blocked. Gab4gab (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to make your views known in talk page discussion: Talk:Appoorva Muralinath#References Gab4gab (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, today you again reintroduced Manual of Style (MOS) issues that I had previously corrected and warned you about. You also removed a 'better source needed' tag without addressing the issue. You removed a reference without explanation. Your changes broke existing references resulting in a 'Cite error'. I reverted you edit. I did restore a citation you added to support: "She was also the Assistant Women's Basketball Coach at Saint Peter-Marian High School Massachusetts United States." However when I went to that page she was not mentioned - so I've added a 'failed verification' tag. Please be more careful and try to stop re-introducing problems that you have already been told about here on your talk page. Gab4gab (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Gab4gab (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Appoorva Muralinath

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Appoorva Muralinath for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]