User talk:Astrohoundy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Astrohoundy and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kelly hi! 20:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

August 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Steven Pinker shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies.[edit]

I apologize. I did not mean to undo your recent edit to the Great Depression. I immediately undid my revert. I had never before seen that "Rollback Vandal" link at the top of any revision history page, and I thought it was an information link. I was very startled when I discovered that I undid your revision, and that the automatically generated edit summary said your revision was vandalism. I know it clearly was not vandalism. If there is no consensus among scholars regarding the statement you removed, then it does not belong in the lead section.Dulcimer music (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What you're arguing is that your personal opinion needs to be in the encyclopedia. This is never the case. If that criticism of Lisak's study matters, a reliable source will publish it. (Doubtful, as you don't seem to understand that a false accusation isn't some abstract philosophical exercise but an actual action by someone, but that's actually irrelevant since either way, it doesn't belong if you can't source it.) I recommend that you revert your edit immediately; your edit-warring to insert your own personal views is damaging both to the encyclopedia and to your own future as an editor.
By the way, if you think that logging out and editing as an IP will throw people off the scent, you are sadly mistaken. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
If "Lisak's study is flawed in this way" isn't just your personal opinion, you should be able to find the same opinion in a reliable source. It is actually quite simple. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at False accusation of rape 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. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you may have recently made edits to False accusation of rape while logged out. There are two reasons why you should not edit while logged out: 1) doing so will reveal your IP address; and 2) people may accuse you of sockpuppetry, i.e. trying to make yourself look like multiple users in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute or rig votes in polls. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrohoundy. You are welcome to comment on that page, to explain the situation. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Information icon Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

After seeing your countless violations of neutral point of view, your additions of unsourced conent on articles related to Islam and how you have yet to be warned, I advise you to remain neutral and source your edits on such articles. If not, you risk being blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decolonization may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • of Berlin]] in 1878. However, the Montenegrin nation has been de facto independent since 1711 (officially accepted by the [[Tsardom of Russia]] by the order of [[Peter the Great|Tsar Petr I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)