User talk:Vanguard666
Vanguard666, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Vanguard666! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
Multiple accounts?
[edit]Hello.
Are you the same editor as the person who used the CollinsBJ account? I note that both of these accounts have made very similar additions to the Somatic experiencing article, and that account last edited 2021-03-09 and you created this account and started editing 2021-03-11. Have you also made many other edits to that same article withOUT logging in, which show up as IP edits? Many of those starting 2021-02-23 appear very similar in style to your additions.
If you are the same person, you should clearly and openly disclose this on your user page, otherwise your editing will look like WP:SOCKPUPPET editing which is considered abusive use of multiple accounts.
This is completely unrelated to the sourcing issue for the article you brought up, which I will address on the talk page. Thank you! ---Avatar317(talk) 21:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't familiar with that rule and created this account because it was more of an avatar name. I ceased using the other when I created this one.
- I'm not sure how one links accounts?
- (HOW to display this link is my own idea, not policy, so you might want to read the policy some more, but)...On the User page for THIS account I suggest you put a line (maybe bold) that says that you used the CollinsBJ account from dateX to dateY and state which articles you edited with that account (since you only edited one article, this is easier) and that you no longer intend to use that account and changed accounts before you were aware of the Sockpuppet policy. Also state the same for the IP edits if those were you.
- The reason for the rule about "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts - Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." is because it will appear that multiple editors have seen (and approved of) the edits, meaning that it would appear that Consensus WP:CONSENUS exists for the state of the article, when in fact that appearance of multiple editors was actually only one editor.
- Also, you should indent your responses with single colons, and use four tildes to sign your posts so that others will know who posted what. If you have more questions, the "Teahouse" link above is an area you can ask questions as well, with editors hopefully more knowledgeable than I. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I tried to "retire" the old account but unsure I did it correctly. I'll ask for help as you suggested. Additionally, I also think "self promotionsl" material may have been removed inappropriately too. I'd have to look up wiki policy again, but citing self promotional material is acceptable if it is countered or corrected or supported with secondary sources. I have often stated "they claim x" but this is incorrect as supported by "y secondary sourced material". ...Vanguard666 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.