User talk:Ericg33

Please read this:

1. New messages (sections) on talk pages always go at the bottom. The '+' or 'new section' button automatically does this.
2. Sign your posts by writing ~~~~ after them. This expands to a proper signature.
3. Read the edit summary. I deleted your contribution to atherosclerosis because it had no context - it was just a one-sentence summary of a popular news article. This does not fit in with that page at all.

- The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Family Guy are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:North American Union for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to North American Union. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Internet Movie Database. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are unsourced. The threshold for inclusion of material in articles is verifability not truth. If you don't have sources, you cannot include the material in the article. Your edits are particularly problematic because they include your own conclusions and conspiracy theories. We do not use Wikipedia articles to peddle conspiracy theories about Amazon or any other company or subject. Oh and please don't edit my userpage. Thanks, Gwernol 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no conspiracy. Amazon is a company that own IMDB. They want to maximize profits. It's just a scummy way to make money. They want credit card numbers and information for their own use. Nothing conspiratorial about that. It should be mentioned. I want the 'to post on their boards you must "PURCHASE from Amazon" information on therel. Thank you. A criticism section on there would be nice. thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs)

First hand experience is not verifiable and can never be used to source Wikipedia articles. Even if your claim about the need for a credit card to register on IMDB is true, your claims that this is a conspiracy by Amazon as a "surreptitious and covert business strategy to accrue background and credit card information" is pure original research and your personal bias. This sort of conspiracy theory is absolutely inappropriate. I have not blocked you as you claim, I have asked you to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. I will, however, block you if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia articles by adding unsourced information and your own personal biases and original research.

If you want to leave me further messages, use my talk page, not my user page. Thanks, Gwernol 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were lying about the credit card verification, I said that you did not have a source. I also said that your conclusion about Amazon's motivations was original research. Please read WP:V and WP:OR which are core content policies on Wikipedia. If you want to include information about the facts of the credit card verification, find a published, independent source. First hand experience is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Your personal theories about Amazon's motivations are definitely not appropriate and should not be repeated. Gwernol 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. With Amazon accnt. http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1151/ama33dz2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs)

That is neither published not independent. Please read WP:V and its associated guidelines to understand that you are not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Have you read any of what I have written? Simply taking a screenshot is not the same as locating a published, independent, reliable source, is it? Nor does this address, in the slightest, the question of the original research you want to place in the article about Amazon's motives. As I said above, this is not a question about whether you are right it is a question of whether you can provide sources to show you are right. Taking a screenshot is not at all the same thing as providing a source. Gwernol 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who in their right mind would put up research on imdb's authentication process? You're trying to say you wont accept my facts.

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Canterbury Tail talk 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

I also ask that you stop your personal attacks on other users, if you continue to edit in this manner and launch attacks against other Wikipedia users then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove other's talk-page comments

Please do not remove other editor's talk-page comments, like you did with this edit: [1]. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. {{sofixit}} is a very typical response to general complaints about an article. Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid core

I have answered your question on my talk page. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Mortgage broker, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a warning here...please don't change other people's talk page headers, like you did with the Steve Fossett page (changing psuedocide to suicide). This wasn't a mistake. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Photographic lens, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. You added that fluorite is used by camera manufacturers; you probably meant lens manufacturers; you add it in the article and site a source, but don't do it this way. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's already mentioned in the article; if you have something to add, that would be the place. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Parents Television Council are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Bodybuilding for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.--Yankees76 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Your recent edit to the page Rebecca Herbst appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you may do and take a look at the welcome page, if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. She is not biracial, and you can verify that for yourself by visiting her official myspace page. Correctone (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Ingrown nail for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. --Yankees76 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your own remedies for things such as ingrown nails are original research and aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Moreover, even if the remedy was cited to a reliable source, Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Talk pages are only meant for discussing sources and building article content, not as Internet forums or blogs, so please stop adding this kind of thing to talk pages. If you carry on with this I will block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Gwen Gale. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Komrade Kiev (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't shield yourself from an admin by going on the attack, although this is not why I've blocked you. Rather, you carried forth putting unhelpful content onto a talk page after I warned you to stop doing so. Having reviewed your contribution history yesterday, I have blocked you for three months. This length is owing to two things: The many requests and warnings you've gotten have not swayed you from making non-encyclopedic edits to this privately owned website and you don't edit so often that a short block would do much to stop you. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for non-encyclopedic edits, talk page abuse. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ericg33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for writing some info on 'ingrown toenails of all things. LOL. The admins said it was unoriginal but it was my method. I didn't take it from some any other website. And my edits on the 'user page' was exactly like everyone else's who were requesting their methods be put in the article. Then the ultrasensitive administrator said i attacked her. Gwen Gale has creative imagination.

Decline reason:

Gwen Gale, above at 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC), is exactly right. Read and follow her advice. Sandstein 10:27, 28 March 2009 (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 applaud this block. It's long overdue. This editor has been adding nonsense to Wikipedia for months.--Quarte t 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? care to explain. Ofcourse you wont. Moderator's protecting each other. What a joke. This is why wikipedia is struggling for funding. I inserted comments on curing ingrown toenails. What lunacy. It was on the TALK page too. Big deal.--Ericg33 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So all of these warnings on your talk page are just placed randomly because someone had some spare time and decided to choose you, of all people, to post made up warnings? Well you wanted evidence, Talk:Bodybuilding and Talk:Bodybuilding supplement are two easy examples - where you're wasting other editors time argueing your own made up theories that do nothing to help improve the article. I could dig even deeper into your contributions, (Talk:The Phantom Edit [2]048, Talk:Ewok [3], Talk:J. K. Rowling [4] are just a few), where WP:NOTFORUM is being ignored on your part. --Quarte t 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that prove? I added information. Not opinion. Protein is created in the body. And George Lucas profits off of toys from his movies. Maybe thats why they were making more silly characters. And all these edits were ON THE TALK PAGE. What is your point? Obviously you have a petty grudge. I am already writing about unfair block to other moderators. I hope they give you the same treatment.

Ericg33, regardless of wether or not it's on the talk pages of articles, you're still posting your own opinion, your own theories and your own WP:OR - original research - that is not aimed at improving the article. Protein is not created in the body (if it was, one would never have to acquire essential amino acids from foods in order to live), it's only your opinion that it is, but it's not scientific fact, which makes the dicussion of it not useful in creating an encyclopedia. Especially when it's something that's so obvious. The same thing with your opinions on protein supplements not being proven to work, George Lucas, home remedies for ingrown toenails and other posts that are better suited to discussion forums. You recieved numerous warnings about this, and yet you still blatantly did whatever you wanted. I doubt any administrator will consider this block unfair (and they certainly won't block anyone else for having a made up "petty grudge" - there are 12 editors here who have warned you, not just one or two). Hopefully you'll use the next three months to do a little research. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over a 9 month period, various editors have warned him about various things, often without linking to exactly what he was doing. Since anyone can post warnings, and many do it without just reason, you can't take them into account without seeing what exactly they were about. Dream Focus 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I spent time looking over his contribution history before even warning him and then, in the block notice the next day, made it clear the block length stemmed from his contribution history along with the many unheeded warnings which it stirred up. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have shut off your ability to edit this talk page owing to the above personal attack you've made while blocked. Personal attacks aren't allowed here. You can still send emails through the system but if you abuse this, it will also be taken away from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ban someone for three months over something minor, and then silence them from protesting on their own talk page. That seems rather brutal. It sounds like someone just got upset he reverted their erasing of his information he felt valid to include, without explaining it properly. This could've been worked out without a three month ban. If it was a combination of things in the past, then list what they were exactly. I clicked on the link provided for one, [5] but it shows something done by a different editor, not involving him at all. Dream Focus 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "minor" at all. His email still works, he can email me or any other admin to talk about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus I think you should dig a little deeper. Personal attacks are not "something minor". Plus as was noted above, one only needs to count the warnings on this page - warnings for vandalism, talk page nonsense, personal attacks, edit warring, NPOV violations. I warned him twice myself for adding nonsense and posting unhelpful information on talk pages. User:Orangemike and User:Ohnoitsjamie, two - administrators have also placed warnings, along with a final warning last July from User:Gwernol who is also an admin and more warnings from Canterbury Tail. All unrelated users from unrelated articles. This is a long term pattern - not an isolated incident. Yankees76 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's not minor is it? Then where are these personal attacks? Hmm. You sir have a grudge. Your just bitter because i undid my deletions on a 'TALK' page. My contributions were no different than anyone elses. Where is this vandalism you keep talking about? Unhelpful information?! I gave good advice on curing an ingrown toenail and you DELETED it. --69.154.214.28 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back as an IP sock is not going to do you very much good, secondly I suggest you read how wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the subject matter of an article. That is not what Talk pages are for. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject matter of the article. Do you understand why what you did is wrong?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me again on how my list of curing an ingrown toenail is not an improvement but vandalism. You people are really comical.--69.155.107.222 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times to we have to repeat it for you? Here, let me make it big, bold, and italic, so that you might understand, and take the time to read that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. Article talk pages are to be used for discussing improvements to the article ONLY. You get that? You are not allowed to do what you are doing. If you do not stop after this block is over, or if you do not stop IP socking in order to evade your block, I see an indefinite block coming your way hard and fast.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how many times have i told you that it wasn't a discussion but a request to add to the article. Do you NOT UNDERSTAND that. You have it wrong. Quit trying to make yourself look good to other moderators. Ridiculously abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.107.159 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also highly suggest that you do not do this, or anything like that, again. Logging out to evade your block is expressly forbidden. Do you really want your IP blocked for a year?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Ericg33: What you have to keep in mind that if you add somethig to an article that is personal opinion, it will be removed. There are plenty of folks here willing to offer advice and asistance. All you need do is ask. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't opinion. It's a remedy. It's fact. I didn't add that like the moderator keeps saying for opinion or just talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.233.186 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. You are not allowed to publish original thought to articles, any material must be attributed to a reliable source per our policy of verifiability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help, Ericg, Self made remidies are not valid for inclusion in wikipedia. Your edits violate Wikipedia Policies. Trust me, we do not go around antagonising users because we feel like it. In fact, we award people who do good here. We invite you to study our policies and guidelines during your block, so you can learn how to contribute in accordance with the policies set forth on Wikipedia. Thank You. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Since Ericg33 is now soapboxing here using his IP address, I have semi-protected the page for a week to prevent further disruption. Horologium (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to CariDee English, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The only source is from May 2008 - she was dating the guy then. How do you or I know she's still dating him? Please don't add the information back without a source. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Missy Peregrym. 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. Thank you.--Yankees76 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz^chat _spy 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz^chat _spy 07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 month block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other admins

Feel free to modify this block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ericg33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my comments were from another wikipedia article. How is that not neutral?

Decline reason:

[6], [7], edit summary, [8], [9], [10], etc. (pretty much nearly all your recent edits) are nowhere near neutral, and you well know it. –MuZemike 00:53, 2 March 2010 (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.

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Talk:People v. Jackson. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Your addition to Yeast has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oxyhydrogen. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Nikolaus Otto, 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, 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 linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Soldering iron, you may be blocked from editing. Wizard191 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. We typically uses review articles. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. Additionally, the diberri tool will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. 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. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

When posting to a talk page please post your message at the BOTTOM of the page, not the top, and do not remove others' posts. I see you've had many prior warnings regarding talk page etiquette including several blocks, so I'm not inclined to assume good faith that you didn't know this. I suggest you thoroughly read and follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines if you wish to avoid further warnings/blocks. -- œ ^™ 02:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Contessa Brewer ‎ for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Shutdown (nuclear reactor) to pointlessly state that you do not like the article. They are for discussion related to improving the article. See here for more information. Thank you. - Talk:Shutdown (nuclear reactor)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Jenilee Harrison, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why you feel the need to repeatedly refer to Jenilee Harison's hair color at Regggie Jackson. I've removed it again. If there is some encyclopedic reason to include this, please explain. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Lower Manhattan Development Corporation for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article

The changes you made are not supported by the reference in questions. Thus reverted this. Addition to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ref you added does not support the text you added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References are required. Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop your edit warring at Single-cylinder engine. Three separate editors think that image is inappropriate. If you believe it should be used then please explain your rationale on the article's talk page rather than keep reverting other people. You might also want to read WP:3RR which explains why edit warring is discouraged and the consequences for continuing to do it. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please avoid edits such as this. Your personal opinion is best checked at the door. Thanks, m.o.p 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

I'm not sure why you believe racial differences in relationships are important.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Unless reliable sources find some importance it, your additions will continue to be reverted. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be as clear as I can. You seem to have trouble with our policies including, but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP and a few others. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia sources. Your interpretation of what is going on in a photograph is not usable as a source for two people being a couple. Your wish to include that it is horrors! a mixed race relationship does not make it relevant. If you don't understand any of this, ask before editing. Not "understanding" is not an excuse for repeatedly violating core policies. In short, please knock it off. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I would like to reiterate what SummerPhD has clearly explained to you above. The information you are trying to add emphasizing biracial relationships is poorly sourced, trivial and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Your focusing on this undue trivial bit of personal info in BLPs is disruptive and needs to stop. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for chronic disruptive editing. Looking over your talk page and edit history, it is hard to find an interval where you haven't been edit-warring, including poorly sourced material (or, worse yet, completely unsourced material), or adding personal perspective into articles.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the blue

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).

Ericg33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You're going to block me because of previous edits 5 months ago! LOL. Are you kidding. Don't for a minute think you have anyone fooled. You talked with your other editors and you said we need to get this guy. My edit were accurate. Are you really going to ban me because i included information on someones real name and religion in the TALK section. Are you kidding? This place is a joke. You're showing bias of the censoring liberal kind. Political correctness at it's worst.

Decline reason:

It's not about edits five months ago. Read through the warnings on this talk page. It's about persistent and continuous disregard of the policies on WP:Biographies of living persons, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 23:36, 23 January 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.

Four years of editing and you're still posting unsourced material and using the talk pages as a forums? And you wonder why you're blocked. Really? Do you read anything anyone posts on here? --Quarte t 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And i never was in any serious edit war with anyone. Are you kidding? Unsourced material? on relationships? Come on, that's just silly. An Entertainers private life is off bounds? At least i used a reference and didn't make it up. This is about SummerPHD who has an axe to grind. --Ericg33 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. All these years and WP:BLP and WP:RS still escapes you. --Quarte t 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, considering your problematic history, ignoring repeated warnings from several editors, repeated blocks and refusal to learn anything from those blocks, a six month block is rather mild. If you continue to argue that you've done nothing wrong and that it's a conspiracy to "get" you, you can very reasonably expect this block to be made indefinite. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPHD has said numerous times she wants me banned for mentioning the boyfriend as being African American. Nobody said mixed race was wrong. SUMMERPHD insinuated it though. She can guess motives even if they're wrong. That's pure liberal political correctness fitting a european. Pure speech censorship. Everything i posted had a source too. Just vague rules on editing allowing editors to ban anyone they want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 January 2012

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).

Ericg33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I used sources, I didn't use talk pages as a forum. And SummerPhd follows me around and stalks me! --Ericg33 (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:20, 27 January 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.

Talk:Katarina_Witt#Zero_information_on_boyfriends_or_marriages.

SummerPhD (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and, a blast from the past

Please read this:

1. New messages (sections) on talk pages always go at the bottom. The '+' or 'new section' button automatically does this. 2. Sign your posts by writing ~~~~ after them. This expands to a proper signature. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my friend. Tell me this. Why are you the only one moderator watching my every single addition?--Ericg33 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly not the only one, they are however expending quite a bit of their time and energy attempting to explain how Wikipedia works to you though. I strongly suggest you begin listening. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the only ones following you, and really with the number of blocks you've endured you shouldn't be suprised. Ever since you claimed that you don't need to eat protein to build muscle because it's created within the body[20], I've been following your edits. They've provided countless hours of amusing WP:TALKNO material. --Yankees76 ^Talk 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need lots of protein to build muscles! Look at prisoners. Regards!--Ericg33 (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The take home message here, Ericg33, is pretty simple: You've been warned. You're being watched. Your last block was 6 months. Your next block, should you choose to go there, will likely be indefinite. (If you'd like to discuss your theory that essential amino acids are not, um, essential, this isn't the place to do it.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Strained yogurt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? "It is accepted worldwide as a food with Turkish origins and still holds its original Turkish name in all languages." No references. No dice. Doc talk 11:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what your talking about Yogurt is a turkish word. It does need reference. --Ericg33 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm talking about: don't expect your proposed entry to survive in its current state. That is all. Doc talk 09:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it need then? I referenced it. Here's another reference to the word.http://www.turkishculture.org/culinary-arts/cuisine/yogurt-304.htm and http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoghurt

You included a ton of declarations and conjecture that are certainly not covered in the reference for the origin of the word. For example: "Food historians believe yogurt and other fermented milk products were first produced in Central Asia during the Neolithic Age." What "food historians"? I'm not going to argue this any further, as I am confident that the community agrees with me here. Please do better in the future. Doc talk 09:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]