User talk:CatchyJ

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CatchyJ.

Archives

1

Archiving

Hi there. Per our discussions, I've added an archive box at the top of this page, and archived that old notice. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and introduction

Hi, CatchyJ. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:CatchyJ/test.

Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ► 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

I'm going to have to give both of you warnings for edit warring. Please read WP:3RR in detail please, both of you. I was actually going to remove the COI tag because I could see no evidence of a conflict of interest. Sure, there has been some biased language (e.g. "prolific dancer", etc.) but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz must assume good faith unless he has evidence to the contrary. If there are any more reversions to this article, then a block may be coming to either one of you. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Toniu Basil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Your repeated removal of the COI template is completely inappropriate. You are not allowed to be the judge in your own case. The template is intended to alert others to the issue, and promote ful and free discussion. Given that several of your edits match up to edits by a user claiming to represent the article subject, the appearance of COI, which is all that the template cites, is clearly present. In these circumstances, reversion of the template can be viewed as vandalism and lead to loss of editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]