User talk:Mezzi10

Welcome!

Hello, Mezzi10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Libby Schaaf has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Dialectric (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Libby Schaaf

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Libby Schaaf, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Libby Schaaf, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Dialectric (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content to Wikipedia that may be copied from promotional or copyrighted sources and is not written in a neutral, encyclopedic style. Wikipedia is based on reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources, which must be cited if an entry is challenged or is likely to be challenged. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum. As such, among other things, it is written in the third person. The inclusion of "we" in the edit certainly does not represent Wikipedia and is further indication that the material is promotional and was copied from another source rather than written in an encyclopedic style and sourced. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Libby Schaaf with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Libby Schaaf. Emotionalllama (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mezzi10, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Libby Schaaf has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. The material you are trying to add is copied wholesale from http://libbyformayor.com/about.html Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Libby Schaaf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzi10, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mezzi10! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mkdw ^talk 23:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Libby Schaaf, you may be blocked from editing. Scr★pIron^IV 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Libby Schaaf. Scr★pIron^IV 17:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Libby Schaaf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. Scr★pIron^IV 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: ). Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for soapboxing and edit warring, with no engagement on the talkpage at all, as you did at Libby Schaaf. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. When you return from the block, please use the talkpage to get consensus for your edits. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mezzi10. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Libby Schaaf, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for resuming edit warring as soon at the 72-hour block expired. You have been persistently disruptive and shown no interest in collaboration, which is the heart of Wikipedia.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create sockpuppets

Mezzi10, you need to request unblock here on your original page and show readiness to discuss; not create sockpuppets. Please stop embarrassing your employer by abusing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]