User talk:Dy824

Dy824, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Dy824! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from other guests and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Edward Yum, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source 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. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Edward Yum. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Edward Yum. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Yum

Please cite your edits. Wikipedia must be verifiable See wp:rs, wp:cite, and wp:welcome for more information. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did.

3RR notice re: Edward Yum

Your recent editing history at Edward Yum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Yum

What do you mean by "That's my write up"? Tiderolls 05:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Edward Yum was changed by Dy824 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865908 on 2012-11-28T06:52:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Tiderolls 06:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account for editing disruptively. Please understand that, specifically, you have edit warred to maintain a version of the article after being reverted by multiple editors and also replaced sourced content with unsourced content in a biography of a living person. If you return from your block to edit outside the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines you will subject to longer blocks. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls 06:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dy824 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didnt do any editing disruptively. Am only added some cites and reference

Decline reason:

Repeatedly reverting an article is disruptive. Max Semenik (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I've altered your edit so that it is formatted correctly. If this doesn't meet with your approval, let me know and I will make the necessary changes. Tiderolls 07:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

You do not need to add messages as categories. You simply need to click the tab at the top of this page labled "New section", add an appropriate section title in the "Subject/headline" box and then type your message in the main dialog box. Tiderolls 07:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Can u unblock me and revert my version that was deleted by cluebot??

Your unblock request will bring an administrator to this page to review your block. Tiderolls 07:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

I have extended your block by 48 hours to prevent further disruption through the misuse of multiple accounts. You are not allowed to edit for the duration of your block from any registered account or IP address. Please read the page linked in this section header. I will be watching this page if you have questions but am at work presently so my response may be delayed. Tiderolls 15:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Biographies of living persons. An editor should only replace cited content with uncited content in very limited circumstances; in biographies of living persons that standard is even more important. If there are problems with the sources or problems with the content, please raise the issue(s) on the article talk page or at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Acting unilaterally and without discussion is not acceptable. Tiderolls 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

Please read the page linked in this section header. Content added to this encyclopedia must be verifiable and supported by independent, secondary sources. This policy is strictly enforced for biographies of living persons. Please stop adding content without citing a reliable source. Tiderolls 13:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]