User talk:PTiger1985

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Alimony. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (PTiger1985) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following your email, I've unblocked. I accept your explanation that although some of your edits were unintentionally disruptive, you weren't vandalizing. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

Hi PTiger1985. Looking at your edits, it seems like you are very interested in alimony reform. That's fine, but you should be aware that it is beginning to look like you are seeking to use WP as a platform for advocacy of this cause. Please note that all editors are required to edit from a neutral point of view and editors cannot use this encyclopedia as a means of disseminating their views or original research.Can I suggest you read (or reread) some of our policies? Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I "talk" to you? I am new to wiki

Here is fine. Usually we add comments under old ones, so I have moved your comment under mine. It is also a good idea to sign your posts, here or on article talkpages. You can do this with four tildes or with the little blue "signature" button in the blue bar above the edit window.--Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1,

I am open to any suggestions you have on maintaining a NPOV. I have provided extensive citations on this Article on Alimony.

Suggestions that I have for now:

stop trying to add alimony links to articles;
provide reliable sources for all your edits. This one, [1]for example, needs a citation per undue weight
carefully consider the language of your edits; This one [2] for example, uses the word "highlight" which is a weasel word which promotes a particular view (also it is unsourced, and placed in the lead, and likely being given undue weight.
The section that you added to Alimony is a classic example of synthesis. You cannot collect together sources to make a point as you have done there. You need to find sources that make the point itself per verifiability and no original research]. If you want to write about the alimony reform movement you need to find reliably sourced articles about the movement itself.

This is enough for now. Please read the links I have provided and listed above in the welcome message before editing further . This is important if you wish your edits to stick (important!!), and of course, in the longterm, failure to abide by WP's policies may mean that editing privileges are ended. --Slp1 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

I've just noticed that you copy and pasted two paragraphs of the Wall Street Journal article into the Alimony article. [3]Note that WP takes copyright infringement and plagiarism very seriously. I have removed them. Please go through your contributions and remove any other material that you have taken from other sources. --Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Made

Slp1 and Sinebot - Thanks for your helpful comments. I have made all of the changes you suggested and deleted some text.

PTiger1985PTiger1985 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Do not restore the material without addressing the concerns on the talkpage. This specifically includes the copy and pasted material that is forbidden. I have told you this several times, yet you have just restored them again. If you do this again, I will block you from editing. --Slp1 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Fathers' rights movement. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not add citations that do not explicitly verify the information you add. Equally, do not add unsourced information Slp1 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Alimony. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You must stop adding information that is not in the article you cite. There is absolutely nothing about no fault divorce (and much of the other material you added) in the Boston Globe article Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Slp1 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting past acceptable. I've been very patient, and you have certainly have shown signs of progress. But I've told you that the information is inappropriately sourced and explained why. Reverting with one word deleted is just not acceptable. This really is a final warning. Any further serious breaches of the WP policies that I have pointed out over and over again, and I will report you to an administrator's noticeboard for action. How about you start proposing your edits on the talkpage of the article, and I will check them first. --Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I obviously did not check the article carefully enough, since the information, more or less, is there, though not all of it is or was. I have removed the portion that you added in--Slp1 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last piece of advice

I don't know if you have seen the posts at the Administrators Noticeboard are suggesting a topic ban on alimony here on WP? [4] I was going to write and say, "no wait, I think there's hope", but now I am not so sure. So many edits are problems. You are adding plagiarized material.[5][6], unreliable self-published sources [7], and unverifiable information [8][9]. Let's take this last one, which you have just reverted.[[10]] You say that "Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma are in the process of changing the laws". The source, [11] mentions only Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma (initially) and Mass (later on) as having "lawmakers are pushing for measures". Ohio and Florida are only mentioned as having "lobbyists and activists [that] are pressing for similar rules". No evidence at all that Florida and Ohio are in the process of changing the laws. It's bad enough that you add this unverifiable information in the first place. But when you revert my correction, it doesn't look good. I think you are on quite thin ice. I suggest you edit accordingly. --Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you wrote is "According to lawyers, men are becoming more aggressive in the pursuit of alimony awards as the stigma associated with asking for alimony fades". What in the paragraph you cite from the AP article "It’s not rare anymore. In fact, in the last 30 years, more and more women who end their marriages are stuck paying support to their ex-spouses - also known as ‘‘manimony’’" supports ? It doesn't. Stop this. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [12] you claim that "Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina are in the process of changing the laws.." I pointed out above, that having lobbyists and activists at work is not the same as "changing the laws". I already pointed out above that the article only supports the notion that Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma and Mass have lawmakers active in this area. Ohio is mentioned in the sidebar too. Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona are only mentioned as having lobbyists at work. I've had it. Sorry --Slp1 (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

Hi PT, good work, and you're getting better. However, I can see you're being harassed/stalked. That is a common thing that happens to people here. If it gets really bad, best bet is to ditch that account, and start fresh at a later time (not for a few months) to lose your tail. Thats the way it works. Don't come straight back on the same topics either, mix up your style so you don't get restalked. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillteache (talk • contribs) 07:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]