User talk:Roarkp

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Roarkp, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Leila Hatami seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{Help me}} on your talk page here, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! wia (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Yazd, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. I see you are interested in editing Wikipedia and adding pictures to articles. However, the pictures you are adding do not seem to have any relation to the article beyond a superficial connection to the city (Yazd) in which they are located. If you would like to insert images in articles, please make sure you place them in logical positions in the article, and caption them appropriately. For more information about this subject, I suggest you read WP:NOTIMAGE and WP:GALLERY. wia (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hugh Jackman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By not following other people's instructions, continuing to add unnecessary content to the article without trying to reach a consensus on the talk page could result in you getting blocked. A couple of us have tried to talk to you about it in length, but you're making the wrong decisions here. Please go to the talk page and discuss the matter properly. Thanks – 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jackman

I have posted a response to your questions at the Hugh Jackman talk page. Please take a look. Thanks, wia (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hugh Jackman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. wia (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?? Its not unconstructive! Just tell me what's the problem?! I had reliable sources for my edits? why its been removed?! I talked 2 U bout it... DID U CHECKED MY SOURCES? DID U READ THOSE ARTICLES? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM? Why do you just oppose it? If it is to be removed every time I edit the article just because someone thinks that it's not necessary or authentic despite the fact that it has some source , so why it's called the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!! This editing that you called unconstructive is exactly exist in other actors page as i told you in talk page ( 26 January 2015 )...Roarkp (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roarkp. You've been repeatedly adding the same content to the Hugh Jackman page, and it is getting removed every time. That is a good indication that the edit you are trying to make is controversial. I suggest you read WP:BRD. It talks about what you should do if your edits are reverted. In that case, it's a good idea to stop trying to push through the change and instead discuss it on the talk page. I've already added my voice to the discussion—I think that if you want to mention his People Magazine Most Beautiful People designation, it probably shouldn't go in the first paragraph. Read WP:LEAD to see why; it says that "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Take a look at the Brad Pitt article for starters. The fact that he is one of the world's most attractive men is included in the first paragraph. However, look at how it is written: "He has been described as one of the world's most attractive men, a label for which he has received substantial media attention." Notice how that sentence does not list any specific dates or any magazines that have bestowed any honour upon him? That sentence is appropriate for the Brad Pitt article because it is sufficiently general in nature. It doesn't overload the reader with too much trivial information right at the start. It gets the point across and serves as a useful summary. Notice also that there are two sources cited for that claim. If you're going to claim that someone is among the world's most beautiful people, there should probably be multiple sources, per WP:DUE.

Now let's look at your proposed edit: "He has been described as one of the world's most attractive men ,chosen as one of People magazine's 50 Most Beautiful People in the World 5 years in a row, 2000-2004and being named as the "Sexiest Man Alive" by People magazine in 2008." You have cited some sources but they are all from People Magazine. If you want to claim that Hugh Jackman is one of the sexiest men alive, there should probably be multiple sources on that point, for the sake of consensus. Furthermore, do you notice how much detail your proposed addition has? It has specific dates and times he's won the award. Per WP:LEAD, that is probably too much information to add to the article.

The way I see it, there are probably two good solutions:

Rework your proposed addition so it is more general and high-level, in accordance with WP:LEAD. This will make it fit better in the lead paragraph. Get rid of the specific dates and add another source. Something like "Jackman has been recognized as one of the world's most attractive men", coupled with a few sources (not just People Magazine), might be a good start.
Rework your proposed addition by moving it to the Mentions in popular culture section. Notice that there is already a sentence there that reads "Jackman was chosen as People magazine's Sexiest Man Alive of 2008." You could add to that sentence by mentioning his "50 Most Beautiful" designations in the years 2000–2004. That way, the information would be in the article, but it wouldn't be stuck awkwardly in the lead paragraph.

Those are two ideas. Think about it, try writing some drafts of the sentences on your own to see what works, and then go ahead and make your proposed change after discussing it further on the Hugh Jackman talk page. I hope this is helpful! wia (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hugh Jackman. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

Roark, your entire edit history since January 23 has been to edit war on Hugh Jackman. Please note that if you continue this behavior, you are liable to be blocked long-term for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]