User talk:Motivação
Welcome!
|
Copyediting Suggestion
[edit]Many editors new to Wikipedia begin with copyedits. This can be an easy entry to understanding how Wikipedia works. However. You must be sure the edits you make do not introduce edits. I noticed a recent edit you made to Karl Marx introduced an error. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, compound modifiers are hyphenated (in this case 'middle-class' modifies 'existence'). I reverted your edit. I then checked your edits at Birmingham, Alabama and found that four of your five edits there reverted correct usages to incorrect usages; in each case the correct usage is specified at the Wwikipedia Manual of Style. At the moment, you have made sixty-three edits at en.wikipedia. Please check more carefully befor making edits. Also, please recheck the edits you have already made. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message at this, your talk page, as I am watching. — Neonorange (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
U.S. vs. US
[edit]I've noticed you've actively been changing U.S. to US in articles about American colleges and universities. Please note that according to WP:NOTUSA, U.S. with the periods is the preferred form for American English. Contributor321 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not replace 'U.S.' With 'US' as an abbreviation of 'Unitrd States'
[edit]Your recent edits replacing 'U.S.' with 'US' have been reverted by two editors now. I have just made more than a dozen reversions to fix this problem. In addition, I have made several reversion of other edits with dab fixes and edits that moved material (Australia) or changed the sense of a sentence in an article llede (Paranoia). Your enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia is admirable, but please read WP:NOTUSA. Also, please leave more informative edit summaries. I would much rather not follow your edits; please make no more edits that substitute 'US' for 'U.S.'. — Neonorange (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Please reply to this message
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
You are continuing to make edits that replace 'U.S.' with 'US' when used as an abbreviation for 'United States'. There is a rule for the preferred abbreviation in the Wikipedia Manual of Style at this location. Please read the instruction there and cease making this change that someone else must fix. It is not fair to you or to others to waste time that can be used more productively. — Neonorange (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop replacing 'U.S.' with 'US'
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Neonorange (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The same goes for changing "the world" to "Earth"! Please stop. You seem to be making large numbers of idiosyncratic edits very quickly, some without due cconsideration. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit war warning
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bipolar disorder. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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 a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Come to the talk page and explain yourself. There is no need for me to waste my time getting you blocked. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- He is correct. Use the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Calidum ¤ 18:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Christian Bale.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Australia. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 02:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- As was indicated in this edit summary, the matter has already been discussed on the article's talk page. Continually reverting the edits of others, especially after you invited them to restore the original link that you changed,[1] and without discussing on the talk-page is edit-warring. You have received a number of similar warnings. When you are reverted, discuss, don't edit-war. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to UKUSA Agreement, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been or will be reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit war at Bipolar disorder—second warning
[edit] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bipolar disorder. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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 a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please engage in discussion on the article talk page and at your talk page. You don't seem to be understand Wikipedia's policies on collaboration. When you don't communicate with other editors it is impossible to reach a satisfactory resolution.
Nine editors have left messages on your talk page, all concerning your edits, but you have not acknowledged any of the concerns expressed. Please do so. Thank you. — Neonorange (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
[edit] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Russia, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page Brother, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring at Bipolar disorder
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motivação reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop
[edit]You've been making rather strange changes to articles and have consistently refused to discuss any changes on the talk page(s) and that has to stop. These include absurdities like replacing world with "the earth" and so on. It appears that this behavior is across multiple articles and not just at India where a few of us have had to revert you. If you continue this behavior then your editing privileges are likely to be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 18:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mutual assured destruction, 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. DVdm (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Word thanks. Fair enough, I might find a source later. Motivação (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to California, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Please do not mark a series of changes as minor, when they are not minor. You've been blocked once recently and things have not improved. Calidum ¤ 05:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think I may have mistakenly marked an edit as "minor" when it was not. I sincerely apologise. Motivação (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate commas on UKUSA Agreement. Commas are not normally inserted before the word "and". The caption that had a comma has been edited. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
[edit]
|
Hi, i live in Cuba an your contributions, in my opinion, are very good. Untipoahi (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
July 2016
[edit] Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to University of Vermont, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Just so you are clear what I'm referring to, it's 3 separate revisions to change 3 words in 1 minute (between 17:47-17:48). The Wikipedia editorial community, as evidenced by the many comments above, would appreciate you paying more attention to your edits to ensure they conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contributor321 (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 31
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Western Europe
[edit]I reverted your edit of the link from "western Europe" to "Western Europe". Just letting you know because I did it manually by accident. Consistency is a weak reason. Europe has a lot of information on the geography, history, etc. of the whole of Europe, including western Europe. Western Europe is, right now atleast, a list of definitions. So the more informative link should remain. Other articles should also link to Europe, not western Europe, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Western Europe needs to be expanded before it has relevance in the lead sentence of high importance articles like United Kingdom. Maybe the link lacks relevance entirely however, per WP:OVERLINK: "the following are not usually linked: ...The names of major geographic features, locations...". Rob984 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Motiva.C3.A7.C3.A3o. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Won't do it again without going to talk page. Motivação (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
[edit] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christian Bale. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Burlington, Ontario, 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Metro areas
[edit]Disagree with your deletion of metro areas in the article "United States." Everyone and his uncle knows that New York is the largest American city, and repeating this is useless (whereas listing all 10 internationally significant US cities is helpful). I will take this to the talk page for consensus. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Word. I just believe the extra content on the other cities is superfluous & unnecessary filler. Motivação (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop (redux)
[edit]Before you continue making edits like this and this, I hope you read our manual of style. Specifically, the part about spelling out numbers one through nine (MOS:NUMERAL) and the part that explains how commas are used in place names (MOS:COMMA). I also suggest you check out WP:CIR, because these are not new issues. Calidum ¤ 17:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
[edit]
Your recent editing history at United States 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 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. Calidum ¤ 02:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop overlinking, as you did at Phoenix, Arizona. Please read WP:OVERLINKING and abide by Wikipedia conventions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Yang Yongxin, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Artoria2e5 emits crap 17:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Motivação. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016 (continued)
[edit]You were cautioned yesterday to stop overlinking Phoenix, Arizona. User:David J Johnson even suggested you read WP:OVERLINKING. Then today, at Phoenix, Arizona, you added a link to United States. Had you read WP:OVERLINKING, you would have seen that a consensus had been reached by editors not to Wikilink major geographic features, and the United States was provided as one of the examples. Your page is littered with cautions from other editors, who may soon begin to consider you a time sink. I would strongly suggest you slow down, take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, and accept the suggestions of more experienced editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
[edit] Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Atheism does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! bojo1498 talk 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Boris Johnson. See MOS:NOTUSA and MOS:TIES. I note also your previous block and the litany of warnings you've previously received: hence the (ahem) "finality" of this one ... richi (hello) 09:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Other editors and I are also having to repair several other issues you've recently introduced to articles. Please review our edit summaries ... richi (hello) 09:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Nice job!
[edit]I just reviewed your edits since my previous warning. They're generally constructive—thanks for your contributions! Might I add a couple of minor notes?
- Foreplay: you accidentally removed the image
- TO: we don't normally say placename in countryname—just use a comma
- Schizophrenia (disambiguation): although your edits to that graf improved it, I removed the entire graf (see my edit summary for reasons)
... richi (hello) 10:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Bill English
[edit]I reverted this, because I just don't get it. What is your reasoning? What exactly are we supposed to be looking for on the main page? This is Paul (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
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/Motivação, 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.
GABgab 21:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação. 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. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]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/Motivação, 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.
General Ization Talk 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
From Anna
[edit]I think I can help. Can we talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]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/Motivação, 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.
jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]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/Motivação, 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.