User talk:Anngelo

Welcome!

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! Doug Weller talk 09:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making major changes

needs to be discussed on talk pages. You've been changing spelling (in one case so that it no longer matches the title of the article, something that clearly needs agreement), deleting sourced text, deleting templates, adding words in odd places, etc. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. "The change was made on true historical based on ancient scripts." is not a reason to make a change. As editors it isn't our role to decide what is "true historical" and we don't use ancient scripts in that way as sources, we use sources that meet WP:RS discussing them. For instance, you mention the Nominalia - but that is interpreted in various ways, so it can't be used as a source for other articles. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

If you don't start discussing these disruptive edits on article talk pages I shall have to report you to WP:ANI. They are disruptive because you are continuing to make major changes with no discussion, some contradicting the sources. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANI

Please respond at WP:ANI#Editor rapidly making pov changes to Bulgarian related articles without discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your current block will be expiring in a couple of days and I would like to reach out to you to see what I can do to help you become a quality editor for Wikipedia. Before you respond anywhere, please take the time to read all of the content of each of the links in the Welcome message above (some of what you will read was added by me). There is a learning curve to learn how to even be an acceptable editor, and in talking with my friends the most common comment they have made is they finally made an edit that was not reverted. The reason for that is simple. It is the wishes of the roughly 3,000 regular editors of Wikipedia, myself included, to create a world class encyclopedia and related other references, that will be a powerful resource for all to use. So lets say you as an expert on a subject know something, and want to add it.

The first question to ask, is is it verifiable? Can you provide a link or reference to a book where the rest of us can check what you have added to verify that it was entered correctly, and does not transpose a number or something like that.
The second question is is it relevant? Is this the best article where this information should be added? Is this the best place in this article? Is this the best way to provide this information? All of us are here to help you in that and will quickly revert any mistakes. But that takes up our time and we will give you a "time out" as you have seen, if we see that one or more of your edits does not fit. As a wiki anyone can edit, and all edits are saved, although some can be permanently deleted if needed.
The third question to ask is is the language appropriate? Is it collegiate? Does it belong in an encyclopedia that is being read by everyone from the first grade through post graduate study?

This is not by any means the only project you can contribute to and if English is not your native language I would strongly recommend starting out in the sister project of your native language of which I think we have roughly 200 and keep adding more. Those encyclopedias tend to need a lot more editors than this one. And the rules for each can be slightly different, although for the most part are very similar. All new user accounts are SUL accounts, meaning you can log into any of them using your same username and password. We also have projects like wiktionary for dictionary entries wikibook for books, and commons for pictures and graphics. After you have read everything in each of the Welcome links, and if you are not blocked here, I welcome you to try to learn how to make edits that will "stick" and become useful knowledge for all to see. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours

I have blocked you briefly as you have continued to make disruptive edits to articles without responding to the issues above. If you continue doing this after your block expires, you may be blocked for longer. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits at Chuvash people including changing a quotation

Besides deleting sourced text and other problems, you changed the quote " "Their maternal markers appear to most closely resemble Finno-Ugric speakers rather than fellow Turkic speakers." to read ""Their maternal markers appear to most closely resemble Finno-Ugric, Scythian speakers rather than Turkic speakers." Surely you can see that this is not an honest thing to do? Doug Weller talk 11:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to text of First Bulgarian Empire‎‎

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Chewings72 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Old Great Bulgaria. David.moreno72 12:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]