User talk:Rotaci

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Haploidavey (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Roman Empire article

Hello, Rotaci. I reverted your edits to the above for several reasons. Your information on lions and tigers in the arena was added in an apparently random manner, and interrupted the historical sequence of the article content; in other words, it didn't belong there. I'm not sure where it would belong - it's too specific a topic for any general article, such as Roman Empire - but before you consider adding it elsewhere, please carefully read Wikipedia's policies on WP:reliable sources. You additions were not well-sourced; to get an idea of what's acceptable, click the link provided, then try looking at the references and sources already used to justify the content of the Roman Empire article. Thanks for reading this. Haploidavey (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense, majority of the each portion of the page is not well sourced or has to go through consensus, should I start erasing half the page and then say find better sources or its not relevant? When you it is not well sourced please be specific, if it doesn't belong, find an area it suits best, because this page does not really have a chronology in its self.

Rotaci (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk. Your enthusiasm is admirable; but I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia's policies, take a look at some of Wikipedia's better articles within the field of ancient Roman culture, see what's required in terms of competencies, and then try out your editing skills in a sandbox (as a registered user, you have one to yourself). And do take your time - better to add one small thing that's beyond reproach than to add a lot that gets reverted - there's nothing so disheartening as that. Meanwhile, another editor has reverted your edits at Roman Empire, for the same reasons I gave above. I can't suggest where else you might place those edits. "Lions vs Tigers" seems a little bizarre, imo, or at the very least narrow in scope, and the sources you've used aren't up to the standard required by Wikipedia. I urge you again to familiarise yourself with what's required, both in terms of sources, and of relevance to topic Haploidavey (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few issues with it, it could be shortened as well and rephrased to fit more nicely and better in the box, overall it is not like it is a massive written essay that takes up the entire page and derails from its chronology and narrative, it is just a small peice on the side lines to give a insight of one of the roman gladiatorial games they once had. I see no reason why the trigger happy removal for it with false accusations of blogs and unreliable sources, they are first hand accounts, you cannot get more reliable than that. Rotaci (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the material you added has now been reverted not merely once but several times, and by several editors. There seems to be a clear consensus against adding it. And not one of those editors is being "trigger happy" - they're simply applying the principles of good encyclopedic writing. Please don't restore the material again; and don't be in too much of a hurry. Just wait for further comments at the article talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I fixed it, I think it looks more concise that way. I will leave it up to others if they would like to feature it on there. Thank'a Rotaci (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernate, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]