User talk:Audrey Horne 89

Welcome!

Hello, Audrey Horne 89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Strange Planet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Strange Planet

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Strange Planet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julian Assange. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons/Assange

Can I ask you to read the last paragraph of Julian_Assange#Public_appearances to see how such matters should be dealt with - and suggest that you actually take the time to read articles before editing them? It is entirely normal for edits to get reverted, with a request to discuss matters on the talk page, and this is not, contrary to your assertions ([1], [2]) 'cyberbullying'. Working usefully on Wikikpedia requires cooperation, not edit-warring, and if you wish to add material in future, I ask you bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey, you have little to fear by taking such content disputes to the talk page. A lone wolf can not "cyberbully" without consequence on a popular article talk page, as many editors will read article talk page comments and keep the discussion steered toward policy and content weight issues. See Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building in talk pages, backing up disputed edits with quality arguements on the talk page will help your cause, and you will understand the objections of particular editors to disputed edits better as they have a chance to outline their objections more clearly. A cyberbully with poor arguements will not get far. Andy may be a grump but he is not a bully. By participating in discussion you also may learn of policy that you may not be aware of, and this will help your experience on wikipedia in the future, as your approach will become more efficient and less bogged down in reverting or restoring the same content over and over again. So aim for finding consensus, it is a good thing. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Julian Assange, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been repeatedly adding material to the article without evidence from 3rd party reliable secondary sources. You have been warned enough times. This pattern of editing is disruptive, and if it is continued, you are liable to be reported to AN/I, and may be blocked in consequence. ISTB351 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overlinking SFR Yugoslavia

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you.

Please don't spam article lead sections with inconsequential information about birthplaces, particularly for people who weren't even adults when Yugoslavia dissolved, because stated historical accuracy doesn't help the reader in any way. In addition, please don't change links to the People's Republic phase (1945-1963) because of the same reason - it's not historically accurate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]