User talk:Tamuren

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Oak Bay, British Columbia, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dethme0w (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me find a source on the section I added in? It's very important to me that I put it on there, but I'm having a hard time with the 'resources' thing as I'm new to wikipedia and that was my first edit.

Can you tell me how this is relevant to Oak Bay? I don't see the relevance. Dethme0w (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I would like to alert you to some policies on Wikipedia that you may not be aware of. First off, Wikipedia is not a soap box. You may not use Wikipedia to make political statements or complain about being evicted. Second, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The edit you made to Oak Bay, British Columbia appears to be something of your own invention. If I am wrong about this, then you need to cite reliable sources for example, newspaper articles to support your claims. And of course, there is the basic geographical fact that Pedder Bay is 13 miles, as the crow flies, from the nearest point in Oak Bay. This issue does not belong in an article about Oak Bay. And because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought, I don't think the issue belongs in Wikipedia. You also have to consider whether this issue is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia with a world wide audience. Land owners evict their tenants so they can redevelop all the time. Why is Pedder Bay any different? You have to show how for your comments (ignoring the other issues) to be suitable for an encyclopedia. Dethme0w (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Understood. You have made me understand that what is happening is not note-worthy and that it doesn't matter if people are or are not evicted from their home to a world-wide audience. I guess I'll tell no one. I wrote that it was in Oak Bay from asking a friend who lives in Pedder Bay. I've lost interest in spreading the story because now it seems too hard.

Please understand that it's not that your issue is insignificant to a world-wide audience, just that it's (sadly) another example of a problem that is very common. And it is soapboxing which we don't allow here. I would encourage you to create a website of your own to draw attention to this issue. Dethme0w (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lucy DeCoutere seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lucy DeCoutere. Please stop adding that content to the page. Everything on Wikipedia, particularly articles of living people, must be written from a neutral point of view. If you have questions, let me know, but please ask before adding it again. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other contributors, as you did on this edit to User:Dethme0w. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:SummerPhDv2.0 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at User:Edaham.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.