User talk:Norfolk Truth

Welcome!

Hello, Norfolk Truth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Hammersoft. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Landmark Media Enterprises, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Media Enterprises / Dominion Enterprises

I am asking you to please stop with your edits for now. You are new here to Wikipedia, and do not yet understand our policies fully. There's no crime in that, but we need to be careful about adding information as you have done. Specific, living people are being named in your additions, We have a policy regarding what we say about living people, and negative information must be verifiable. See WP:BLPREMOVE. I've looked at the cite you provided, and have stripped the content you have added to both of these articles down to only that which is directly supported by the cite.

Further, the nature of what you said in the edits makes an accusation of guilt, rather than any sort of alleged actions. These people have not yet had their day in court, and they are not guilty of anything at this time. We must remain neutral, and discuss such things in this manner. See WP:NEUTRAL.

I must ask; do you have a particular vested interest in this case? For a person to come on to Wikipedia, and within their very first edits begin to post edits decidedly against certain entities comes across as someone with a vested interest. I strongly encourage you to read our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. While it is possible to write about subjects with which you are closely affiliated, it is often fraught with difficulties. If you do have a conflict of interest, I recommend you post requests to the talk pages of the respective articles to seek others willing to digest what you want to add and do so appropriately.

If you have questions about any of these, please ask. I'm happy to help. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dominion Enterprises. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 21 May 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. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I've blocked you for 72 hours for your edit-warring at Landmark Media Enterprises and Dominion Enterprises. More important, your sole objective at Wikipedia appears to be to add material to two articles about a federal lawsuit. You have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, but you persist in adding material that is improperly sourced and non-neutral. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You resumed your disruption by restoring the same material at Landmark Media Enterprises after a hiatus from Wikipedia. I've therefore blocked you for one week. If you persist in your agenda after expiration of this block, the next block may be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that you aren't blocked from your talk page, and when your block lifts, you would avoid a permanent block if you ceased restoring that material and instead engaged in discussion to convince the community that there is a basis grounded in Wikipedia policy for including that material. Most experienced editors follow WP:BRD — make a WP:BOLD edit (which you did), but then when you are reverted, engage in discussion instead of restoring your edit.

I encourage you to read the arguments given on Talk:Landmark Media Enterprises and Talk:Dominion Enterprises, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines linked in those comments. Remember, mere existence of a lawsuit doesn't qualify it for mentioning in an article. Your or my personal opinion about the significance of a lawsuit is completely irrelevant. The only objective means Wikipedia has to determine whether something merits inclusion is significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. You provided reliable and verifiable sources, but that isn't sufficient — they didn't constitute coverage and they weren't secondary sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]