User talk:Scabeba

Welcome!

Hello, Scabeba, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Buddy Rich may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

html|title=www.dustyspringfield.info|publisher=dustyspringfield.info|accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.powells.com/review/2001_11_09.html|title=www.powells.com|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Buddy Rich because it did not appear constructive. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Buddy Rich. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, unless you have multiple sources for "featuring the greatest drummers in the world" this is simply peacock terminology. Nick Rich's co-creator status also needs a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scabeba. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

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.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistaken comments at LeProf_7272

In re:

"Please do not edit my edits on the buddy rich page...I am his daughter and know a lot more about him than you. Leave it alone!!!" (see [1])

Please see the Talk tab at the Buddy Rich page. My deepest respect for the abilities, legacy, and contributions of your late father. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Buddy Rich. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the misunderstandings that have already take place, NeilN, it would behoove you (i) to make sure indents differentiate your additions from those preceding you, and (ii) that you attempt to be more civil to the new editor, teaching as much as judging. Your approach to Wikipedia respect and good faith in your policing is at the lower limits of acceptability, at best, of what is expected of an editor's responsibilities to a new user. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scabeba, look upward to Materialscientist (a great, fair guy) and NeilN's entries, and see especially the blue-colored bits, which are pointers to wikipedia policies. These gents are correct in saying you are approaching trouble here. In particular, there are very particular standards for encyclopedic writing: always must have reliable published source, must be neutral (and so by declaring your relationship, you should prompt others with more distance to contribute—earlier interviewers, biographers, etc.), and cannot go back and forth like a bad chess move. You will not win a fight, in this case, in this way (even if correct). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My "idents" are fine (kindly don't change them) as are my posts. Your needless lecturing won't change anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word used was indents, as in indentations. And as for lecturing, you are correct, I think, you are beyond reach. Hope in helping lies with others, and I will encourage others, and let you be you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Buddy Rich. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scabeba, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Scabeba! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Buddy Rich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing, including edit warring, removal of article content without explanation, persistently adding content without verifiable sources, promotional editing, and attempting to deny other editors the right to edit an article which you have decided to take ownership of. Amongst other issues, it is important to realise that someone creating a Wikipedia account and claiming to have personal knowledge of a subject is not a reliable source, as we can and do get people making such claims fraudulently. Also, an insider is likely to have a view of what is significant and worth reporting that is very different from that of an impartial outsider, so Wikipedia's conflict of interest strongly discourages such insiders either from editing the article. If there are factual inaccuracies that you know of, it would be much better to explain the reasons why you think changes need to be made, provide reliable sources to support those changes, and ask for another editor to make them. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]