User talk:Nika1234

Welcome!

Hello, Nika1234, 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 edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of 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. As well, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michele

You keep adding that she was in the Time 100 2011 list. I don't see her name. Please explain or don't add it again. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was,you can see in section "Awards and nominations".

That's 2010, not 2011. Now that we have that clear, there is another question. Grammy and Emmy are big enough to mention in the lead. It's not obvious that the Time 100 is big enough to mention in the lead in this case. Is it? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should mention that she was on Timee 100 list. It was mention in the lead in Adele,Chris Colfer,Oprah Winfrey etc. Wikipedia articles.

January 2013

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Lea Michele. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rvir0522 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lea Michele, you may be blocked from editing. Rvir0522 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lea Michele shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Rvir0522 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2013 (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. Thank you.--Rvir0522 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lea Michele. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns go beyond the edit-warring on the Michele article. When I look at your short contribution history, I see many problems, including (1) addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced material, (2) removal of sourced material, (3) no explanations in your edit summaries as to what you're doing, (4) failure to sign your posts (you've made only one), and (5) refusal to discuss your changes. Some of these problems are evident across multiple articles with many different editors reverting you over and over again. I strongly urge you to change your approach after the expiration of this block; otherwise, you may be in for a much longer block, including an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your latest changes to the Michele article. Coming off a block and resuming the same behavior is grounds for another longer block. I again urge you to edit more collaboratively. One more edit like this last one, which shows that you've learned nothing, and you may be blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lea Michele, you may be blocked from editing. Rvir0522 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]