User talk:Goodfaith17

talk page

Hello, Goodfaith17. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Goodfaith17, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Goodfaith17! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at India. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mother Teresa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing to make claims, without evidence, that other editors are editing on behalf of a religion, rather than editing per WP:NPOV. I already warned you (and others) about this, and this is the block you deserve. If you want to contribute, you must do so civlly--talk about content, not contributors. If you really think that a specfic editor is regularly violating WP:NPOV, you must bring up the matter on a behavioral noticeboard like WP:ANI and seek sanctions against that editor--not just cast disparaging remarks on article talk pages.. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caste in India

Please don't claim you're "adding sourced info" when you add about 1 source for over 3K of info, the vast majority had a source no where near it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi people

Please do not add non-free files to this page as it violates WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

In the media: Lawyer goes to court to discover Wikipedian's identity; Storming Wikipedia; Wikimedia UK Secretary in conflict-of-interest controversy; Does Wikipedia need a "right to reply" box?

WikiProject report: WikiProject Indonesia

Featured content: Tintin goes featured

News and notes: As deadline approaches, Individual Engagement Grants looks for ideas

Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my!

Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes

Hinduism

When you make a massive insertion of text, and another makes a legitimate complaint and reverts you, like happened at Hinduism, your next action should never be to reinsert that information. Really, like, never. Go to the article's talk page and discuss your suggested changes. You may even need to do it slower, discussing part by part.

Whoa, I just noticed a bigger problem: you copy and pasted a lot of that stuff from other websites. Do not do that. Ever. That's a copyright violation, and will result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. We take copyright very seriously, and it's not something that is in any way negotiable. At all. Not a bit. I cannot emphasize that enough.

I'll explain a little more on the article talk page. The important thing for you now is that you do not attempt to reinsert that material there until such time as you have consensus to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga

You appear to have complete disrespect and disregard for the changes made by other editors. Several additions and changes by different editors were reverted by you, despite proper discussion on the "Talk" page. There already has been lots of discussion with you on Yoga. Information is not you personal property for you to twist and modify as you feel right. PLEASE STOP! Samenewguy (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its you who is making wrong changes. I have not reverted any goodfaith edits by other users.Goodfaith17 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]