User talk:Rangitata

May 2015

Hello, I'm Non-dropframe. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Max Cryer without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Max Cryer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Rangitata, 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.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 04:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Rangitata. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Max Cryer, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 220 of ^Borg 04:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Max Cryer with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Max Cryer with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Max Cryer. 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.

Even if you are the subject of this page, you have no special rights to control its content. You are removing sourced information, and replacing it with un-sourced. If the text was slanderous, biased, un-sourced or gave wp:Undue weight to negative (but reliably sourced) information about you then you would have a reason for your edits. Just saying:

"This page is about me. I am returning to what it was. Someone had made some inaccurate and misleading additions."

is insufficient reason.

As per one of my recent edit summaries, this should be discussed on the Talk:Max Cryer page.

You may contact Wikipedia directly via the Wikipedia:Contact us page with any concerns you have. Please don't edit war over the content of this page. 220 of ^Borg 04:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]