User talk:Unbiaseduser

November 2007

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Roanoke Colony. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Bongwarrior 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Roanoke Colony. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 11:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. See your edit summary here: [1] — Indon (reply) — 11:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Anti-Protestantism

As Richard wanred, the new section you added is unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances about treatment on Yahoo! Answers or other Internet forums. Your material is patently non-noteable; you've referenced no reliable sources on the topic. The direct links to Yahoo forum constitute original research, which is against WP policy. And you will be in violation of the three revert rule if you keep adding back the section, which will result in an administrative ban. I urge you to review Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Majoreditor 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good for you to read our policies on the 3 revert rule and our guidelines on notability and reliable sources. --Richard 04:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Yahoo!Answers

As you have been warned regarding Anti-Protestantism, the new section you added to Yahoo! Answers is unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances about treatment on Yahoo! Answers or other Internet forums. Your material is patently non-noteable; you've referenced no reliable sources on the topic. The direct links to Yahoo forum constitute original research, which is against WP policy. And you will be in violation of the three revert rule if you keep adding back the section, which will result in an administrative ban. I urge you to review Wikipedia policy.

Further, these edits are the same content as that produced by User:Lunasblade, who was blocked for sockpuppetry. (User talk:Lunasblade). Thanks, Novangelis (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Yahoo! Answers

Hi there. I reverted your edits to Yahoo! Answers, as they appear to be original research. Please cite reliable, independent secondary sources when adding content. Thanks a million =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that the content you have now added multiple times is original research. You have cited no criticism outside the scope of your own edits and direct links to user profiles on the site, which constitutes original research on your part. Please see our guideline on adding reliable sources for more information. Consider modeling the criticism section after PayPal's. Also, I would suggest that you avoid name-calling when dealing with other editors and remain civil in your discourse on talk pages. --slakr^\ talk / 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy

Excuse me, secondary sources? What was not secondary? I cited the experiments of other users and all you have to do is read the complaints made by the ATHEISTS AS I POINTED OUT. Stop being a lazy ignorant who throws his weight around willy nilly.

Please do no blank out prior editorial discussions / warnings

I have restored the warnings that existed prior to your blanking your user talk page. They appear above this section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnbiaseduser&diff=174543647&oldid=174524639

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yahoo! Answers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.

4th revert: [2]

5th revert: [3]

—slakr^\ talk / 06:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I would suggest you cease re-adding the section you're trying to included on Yahoo! Answers; as explained on the talk page of the article, it's original research, the sources included are not reliable sources, and the entire section is likely to fail the neutral point of view requirements. You are also in danger of breaching the three revert rule; this, or classifying good-faith edits by experienced editors backed by policy and guidelines as vandalism, could lead to your being blocked from editing. Please take this into consideration. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for violation of the three revert rule. Please stop edit-warring or you are quite likely to be blocked. Read the talk page and the above notes, and please learn how the guidelines of Wikipedia are applied with regards to the material you are trying to add. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of three-revert rule in additional to WP:AGF as well as WP:OWN. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Unbiaseduser for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Novangelis (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kyleain for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Novangelis (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]