User talk:Stanazollo

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Zeitgeist: Addendum

RE [1]: Please do not reply to a hidden editing notice within that notice. Take it to the article talk page. And, yes: Such a qualifying assertion about the Venus Project does most definitely need a reliable, third-party source attached to it. Also note that neither original research nor non-neutral editing is gladly suffered on Wikipedia. Just saying, on the assumption that you don't know these things yet. Everyme 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Alex Jones is not a reliable source for that claim. Everyme 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

only account?

Considering the very long streak of absence of this account, I wonder if you have any other accounts? If so, please note that the fact should be clearly and prominently stated on this account's main user page. Everyme 14:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zeitgeist: Addendum

Hello, I have noticed your edits to Zeitgeist: Addendum, mainly the assertion that the "Venus Project", which is promoted by the film, is communist. The Venus Project itself doesn't describe itself as communist [2], so it can't just be asserted that it is. These claims need to be properly attributed, not just in footnotes, but in the main text. Also, Alex Jones (radio) is only a reliable source for what Alex Jones says. He is a conspiracy nut, through and through. In the clip you give, he claims makes extraordinary claims about evil cabals and other such nonsense.

Also, please remember that edit wars are considered disruptive and that you should take your concerns to Talk:Zeitgeist: Addendum, instead of continually reverting. I would like to point out the three-revert rule, which states that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." (emphasis original). Failure to follow this rule can lead to a block from editing. Thanks, --Phirazo (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zeitgeist: Addendum. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Everyme 18:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Zeitgeist: Addendum. Roux-HG (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Zeitgeist: Addendum. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR violation plus removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis

We don't put citations at the top of an entry. That area is a summary of what comes below and the citations should be below. You're not helping improve the entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]