User talk:Michaelpeterpeyton

Michaelpeterpeyton, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Michaelpeterpeyton! 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 Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Saint Margaret of Scotland has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Saint Margaret of Scotland was changed by Michaelpeterpeyton (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950917 on 2018-08-25T16:55:11+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on St Joseph's College, Upholland[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page St Joseph's College, Upholland, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Alban Roe. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I nticed you've added several dozen links to a personal website. This is considered spamming and violates WP:RS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Alban Roe. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Hi - I did not realize that by using a link - I was advertising or promoting my work. I used the links to justify my editing - all the links used were to articles written by myself and another colleague. Realizing this I will not use links in the future. I need some guidance on how to justify my additions to an article. Thank you Michaelpeterpeyton (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Rejected for sockpuppetry. MER-C 19:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Self sourcing and self reference are never a good idea. Especially here. (had this discussion in freshman english, hah. those were the days.) All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. You must find sources in recognized publications online or in print. Journals, magazines, books, newspapers. As individuals, we do not satisfy this. At best, we would be presenting WP:original research, and that cannot be used to source an encyclopedia. And as to copyright, we cannot use material copyrighted elsewhere. All content must be compatible with the GFDl, creative commons, or in the public domaain. Hope this helps.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Michael Peyton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obvious block evasion with the same problematic editing pattern. Favonian (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]