User talk:HeliumPearl

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for my edit reverts and disruption.HeliumPearl (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HeliumPearl, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi HeliumPearl! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A word of caution[edit]

Hello User:HeliumPearl! I saw your edits to Eros and those led me to examine some of the other edits you made. I see that you like adding pictures. I think that pictures are very helpful and can greatly enhance the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia and I often add new images to articles myself. Nonetheless, I must offer a word of caution; do not just add images because they look appealing. Images should be used for encyclopedic purposes. I thought that most of the images you added were fine in this regard, but some editors are much pickier about what qualifies as "encyclopedic purposes" than I am.

If possible, try to stick to images of historical or artistic significance. Paintings by well-known artists, for instance, generally take priority over paintings by lesser-known artists. Similarly, for historical figures, contemporary representations are generally preferred over non-contemporary representations. Artistic quality should, of course, also be taken into account.

Lastly, it is possible for an article to have too many images; if the images are stacked up all on top of each other, or there are so many of them that they squeeze out the text or distract from the article, then there are probably too many of them. (The only page you added images to where this seems to be a problem is Madonna (art), which already has a rather large and unwieldy number of images.)

I am not trying to criticize you or attack you for anything. I am just trying to be helpful by giving some useful advice. If you wish to know more, I suggest reading some of the Wikipedia guidelines on images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kay, thanks!HeliumPearl (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been a bit of a misunderstanding about some of what I said here the other day. I was not suggesting that you should go through and delete pictures from articles; I was merely saying that if a section of an article seems to already have plenty of pictures, it may be inadvisable to add more of them to that particular section. As far as I am concerned, the current number of images at Kiss is perfectly fine; there is no need to go through and delete any of them. Chances are, if the images are already there and have been there for a while, there is probably no need to remove them unless a large number of people on the talk page are specifically complaining about them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Okay.HeliumPearl (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to say thanks. SorryHeliumPearl (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss[edit]

I have reverted your edits at Kiss because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED - Arjayay (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Social, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. The image you chose for the article was not appropriate for the subject matter. Please do not attempt to place that image into the article again. KNHaw ^(talk) 03:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood.HeliumPearl (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Thanks for catching me before I get, um, sort of "carried away". Thanks.HeliumPearl (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kiss, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You removed sourced content that has been in the article for years. Your deletion was undone and you were asked to take it to the talk page. Per WP:BRD it's up to you to take it to the talk page and discuss it. If other editors agree then it can be removed. Don't keep removing this. Meters (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did give a reason, and he didn't. well, my problem is that it does not contain the info we need.HeliumPearl (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page so other editors can see the discussion and contribute. Your edit was undone and you were asked to take it to the talk page. Your edit was contested. It's up to you, but if you don't the material is going to stay in the article. Meters (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Iwant it removed, I just feltthat the section should be for a wider scope. Oh well...HeliumPearl (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss this here. For the fifth time, take it to the article's talk page if you want to discuss the edit. If you don't want to discuss the edit then don't (but don't remove the material and argue about it in the edit summary). You may well be right that the section needs to be changed, but if you remove it again without first discussing it, your next warning will likely be for edit warring. Meters (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the fuss? I did not remove the material...HeliumPearl (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Love, you may be blocked from editing. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How were my edits vandalism?HeliumPearl (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Love. Operator873^CONNECT 06:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Love. Your changes are not compliant with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View requirements and present a biased and one sided slant to the article. Operator873^CONNECT 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One sided? How? I have no idea what is so biased about a heart and a painting....HeliumPearl (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Love shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Your edit has been undone by multiple editors. BRD does not mean that you state your opinion on the talk page and then revert again. Wait for consensus. Meters (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except I have been discussing this on the talk page and people keep on reverting them without providing any explanation.HeliumPearl (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters, those were not exactly the contested edits (see the article's talk page). Also, good reasons are demanded by WP policies for removal of content, none of which is given here.HeliumPearl (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FyzixFighter[edit]

@ FyzixFighter talk, I saw your mention of me being a possible sock of Gonzales John. I cannot edit Doug Weller's talk page right now since some asshole typed with some profane user name and got this IP address blocked. If I really were a sock of Gonzales John, I would have created multiple accounts for people to sway the article Love to my advantage, which I obviously did not. As for the "virtue/sin" theme you've seen apparently in Gonzales John's edits, they are not present at all in my edits. All I've done so far is add images to dull-looking articles because I love pictures. My only intention is to illuminate WIkipedia articles, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to block me for being soeone else's soc, go ahead, but it is the loss of this encyclopedia, not mmine.HeliumPearl (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

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 transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), 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 that 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.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see ho wthat is gibberish. And Wikipedia is not Censored, so there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeliumPearl (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOTCENSORED policy has nothing to do with the discretionary sanctions on this topic. I suggest you read both carefully. Funcrunch (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]