User talk:Eclipsemullet

Welcome

Hello, Eclipsemullet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to George Galloway, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to George Galloway. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Galloway. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Eclipsemullet,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 18:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at George Galloway. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Cowes Enterprise College, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Phrases like "I personally know..." or "I have seen a picture..." are red flags that indicate original research. There needs to be a reliable and verifiable reference given for facts added to articles. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cowes Enterprise College, you may be blocked from editing. Once again - ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA. How can I say it any clearer than that? As someone who has been blocked for edit warring in you should tread carefully and learn from your past mistakes. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cowes Enterprise College, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Last and final warning. Again, you really should know better having been blocked before. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lens (1)

I have tried to explain why your repeated addition to the summary of this group's Wikipedia article is inappropriate. Please use the talk page for advocacy of your viewpoint. Philip Cross (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is totally appropriate because it proves that MediaLens take money from far-left, political organisations and, therefore, the reader cannot assume them to be unbiased politically. Indeed, reading their output over a period of time, it is obvious they are not.

Eclipsemullet (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helia Ebrahimi (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Non-dropframe was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Helia Ebrahimi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--Non-Dropframe _talk 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Eclipsemullet, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Helia Ebrahimi concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Helia Ebrahimi, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Helia Ebrahimi

Hello, Eclipsemullet. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Helia Ebrahimi".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helia Ebrahimi (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has only one reference and no independent references. This draft does not have enough substantive content to meet general notability guidelines.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Helia Ebrahimi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Eclipsemullet, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Helia Ebrahimi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Helia Ebrahimi. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Helia Ebrahimi

Hello, Eclipsemullet. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Helia Ebrahimi".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lens (2)

Please stop adding unsourced comments about this group to their article. An assertion by Oliver Kamm that they are "far left" is already included, and implied in several other citations such as Peter Beaumont's description of them a decade ago as "a train spotters' club run by Uncle Joe Stalin". These are admissible because they are the opinion of published commentators in reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing your POV that Media Lens are 'Far Left' (your capitalization). The term 'far left' has meaning only in the context of the speaker's location on a left-right spectrum. You've pushed that term into the article (and been reverted) at least half-a-dozen times. Adding the word 'undeniable' to your edit summaries doesn't make the claim undeniable.

I read Media Lens regularly; but I have to say that I don't know where on the political spectrum they would locate themselves. They particularly target The Guardian, a supposedly left-liberal organ, for criticism; but their criticisms are generally concerned with editorial bias, not The Guardian's political stance in left-right terms. I would guess that they might be anarchists by inclination; but 'anarchist' doesn't mean the same as 'far left'. And anyway, my guess is no better than anyone else's.

Your editing is disruptive, and if you continue to push that term into the article I will seek remedies. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ash Sarkar, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ash Sarkar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2021 (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, as you did to Ash Sarkar. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ash Sarkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Note that it's pretty obvious that you edited logged out first. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ash Sarkar, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ash Sarkar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please discuss on the Talk page before mass-deleting content, changing the image, changing templates, etc. without explanation. The use of a self-published Twitter post to change the lead for a subject already categorized as an opinion journalist is also disputed and can be discussed on the article Talk page as well. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]