User talk:NickMaraj

December 2020

Hello, I'm Pahunkat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Barbados have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Pahunkat (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Barbados, you may be blocked from editing. It is never OK to post personal commentary to an encyclopedia article. Please stop doing this, and stop removing sourced content (which doesn't say what you think it says). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NickMaraj. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Please note that your new question was moved to the previous section you started, so you'll find all the replies here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Barbados, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barbados. 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 their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please, please read the responses that other people have taken the time to write to you, explaining how Wikipedia works. In addition to the information posted on this page, there are several responses to you in this discussion. You cannot remove sourced content and replace it with content based on your personal experience. You must not put personal commentary in an encyclopedia article. Please self-revert your most recent edit, and discuss the issue on the article talk page. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No original research please

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Barbados, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss any concerns you may have about the article Barbados on its corresponding article talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see whether there's an encyclopedic way as well as a consensus for including such information in the article. Article's aren't intended to be places where editors can post personal comments or their personal analysis about a subject. Others have been very patient in responding to your various posts at the Wikipedia Teahouse and providing you guidance above here on your user talk page. They are really trying to help you avoid problems, but a Wikipedia administrator may have no choice but to step in an take action, which may include blocking your account from further editing, if you continue to try and edit the article in such a way. Nobody is trying to offend you or the Barbadian people, but article content is expected to be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines even if what you're adding is true. You're quite close to overstepping the "three-revert rule", and any more attempts to re-add this content is likely going to not end well for you; so, please use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns with others and give them a chance to help figure things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi NickMaraj! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, It was incorrect., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)