User talk:AnnieKalou

AnnieKalou, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AnnieKalou! 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 John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Paris Kassidokostas - Latsis, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meszzy² (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Paris Kassidokostas - Latsis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paris Kassidokostas - Latsis. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Materialscientist (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for protection...

I have noticed you almost exclusively edit the article you requested protection for. So, be so kind and disclose any conflict of interest you might have. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latsis

Since you have a conflict of interest with regards to Latsis, it is recommended that you don't directly edit his article. Your edits are written in a promotional tone, don't follow the manual of style, and don't cite sources, which is why I've reverted to a previous version of the article. Please do disclose your conflict of interest and only propose changes on the talk page of the article using the {{request edit}} template. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

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, as you did at Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis, you may be blocked from editing. Meszzy² (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis. Meszzy² (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I also note that the content which you keep adding to the article is not written from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia policy. Please do not edit to promote a person or his reputation.
It would be better not to make major changes to articles until you have enough experience of editing to know how Wikipedia style works. To give just two examples, we don't have section headings in all capitals, and we don't use the present tense to describe events which took place in the past. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More on conflict of interest

It may be that the two fairly low-key messages above relating to conflict of interest did not sufficiently make it clear to you how importantly this issue is taken. That may explain why you have continued to edit in the same way after receiving those messages, although you clearly fall under the provisions of the relevant policies and guidelines. Therefore, to help you understand the situation, below this message I am posting a more formal notice about the issue. Please note in particular the point about editing as part of paid work, as that is one of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, and therefore a legal requirement for editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnnieKalou. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During this time, I suggest that you read about our policies on edit warring and neutral point-of-view, as well as our manual of style, especially the section on heading. If you resume disruptive editing upon release of this block, you will be blocked for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As you resumed the disruptive editing after the last block expired; you're invited to discuss your edits on the subject article's talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

AnnieKalou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24164 was submitted on Mar 04, 2019 12:29:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]