User talk:Betterday123098

Welcome!

Hello, Betterday123098! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sources

You'd need to use peer reviewed academeic papers for genetics, we would never use blogs such as the one you added. Please read WP:RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your post to my talk page. No problem, we all make mistakes. I will delete my warning. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Betterday123098, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Betterday123098! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mirko Vučinić. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Betterday123098 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, You are not suppposed to keep reverting. Please read WP:BRD, that explains that after you were bold (B) in your edit and someone reverted (R) you should discuss (D) on the article talkpage or directly with the editor. Also when you add content, especially to a living person, WP:BLP, that content will be removed immediately if not sourced and wikipedia is not a reliable source WP:RS. Feel free to report me if you want (but I doubt you will be successfull as I stay within guidelines and have never been blocked) or you could read the edit summaries and ask me questions why I revert, because I have some experience here on wikipedia and I might be able to help you. Also I moved your posts at my talkpage to bottom of page. QED237 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You say you have experience but your edits say otherwise, and somehow you cant even get your signature right as you dont link to your correct talkpage. QED237 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Candreva

Hi again,

I saw you edited my talkpage so I thought I should reply.

First of all please listen to what has been said above and why you were blocked. In this case you were blocked for edit warring when you kept reinserting same material over and over again without any discussion after it was challenged. Then when you were allowed to edit you kept on doing same thing again, this time on Candreva page. I told you earlier about WP:BRD (please read it) that clearly states that after you were bold (B) and added the text and then someone reverted you (R) you should have started dicussion (D) and not add content again and again. You might also want to read WP:3RR that says that if you revert or re-add same content three times you may be blocked (unless it is crystal clear vandalism).

Instead of re-adding the content you should have opened a discussion at the article talkpage (which I saw you did and I will reply there as well soon). If that does not get that much attention from other editors I would suggest you go to the most relevant wikiproject for comments and I would have taken it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for this footballer. You could also go through WP:RFC (request for comments) to request comments from other users.

On my talkpage you wrote that you edited the page again so I could see it, that is something that you really should not do. All old edits can be seen in the page history and there all your edits can be seen so I can see all you sources and text there. Also you could add all your source to the talkpage discussion so you should never use a article for that purpose to show what you want to be added.

About the articles you said it was fine before I came and removed it, that is not true. Just because no other editor had seen it and removed it soes not make it good. Also because a person has a special name does not mean he come from that place.

I hope you take this as a learning experience and come back to wikipedia as a better editor and not pushing your agenda but contributes in other ways. QED237 (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malbin210, 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 verify that 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.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)