User talk:Adamh4

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Adamh4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adamh4, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Adamh4! 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! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to walk before you...[edit]

Hi Adamh4 - -with regard to your comment on the BLP noticeboard - you have been on Wikipedia for about a month... generally it is unwise to start weighing in on policy issues, and also unwise to get involved in disputes, while you are still learning how we do things here. Everybody is very welcome to edit, but editors who are new do best longterm when they take it slow and learn before taking sharp stances on things. Getting in too deep too fast often leads to anger and burnout and a lot of frustration all around, and we lose potentially great contributors that way. No need for that! I advise you to take it slow at first. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

Thanks for reaching out to me, I appreciate your concern! Although I am a new contributor, I have been using Wikipedia for some years now, and understand how the rules work, as well as the controversies that surround them. I was not trying to come off as aggressive or passionate, but have witnessed many similar situations where unbalanced or biased pages have been able to stay the way they are. This is merely an observation I have seen after years of surfing through the pages! I figured that it would be a good idea to add my input; I hope that I did not offend anyone in the process. I'm just here to help as best as I can, like everyone else, and learning as much as I can!

Again, I appreciate your concern. Good luck to you as well! Adamh4 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for receiving my words graciously. Reading articles, and digging down into the policies and guidelines that guide us as we write content and discuss things on Talk, are two really different things. I have been editing for several years now and I am still learning stuff. You are making strong statements on Talk and noticeboards and please believe me when I tell you that your comments do not reflect a solid understanding of MEDRS, FRINGE, and NPOV. It takes time to understand what these policies and guidelines say, what their spirit is, and how we work with them - please give yourself time and don't bash your head bloody. I'll be happy to field questions, as long as they are real and not rhetorical; if i cannot give a good answer i'd be happy to refer you to those who can. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'll be sure to continue to analyze the rules as I go on. Thanks again! Adamh4 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing[edit]

Our discussions at Talk:MonaVie led me to wonder what else you have been involved in - and a look at your edit history suggests to me what might well be considered a pattern of promotional editing on behalf of certain article subjects. Are you familiar with the WIkipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I cannot help noticing that you and Stevecastro seem to be making very similar edits on the same groups of articles. Presumably this is a genuine coincidence of interests, but it does attract attention. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a genuine coincidence of interest, I have not even noticed these similar edits. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, though. Adamh4 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 4 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Anthony Armstrong Emery page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

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 Shmuley Boteach‎. Your use of the totally unsupported word "many" in a highly inflammatory context in this article, and also your use of a single opinion piece as a source for the views held by the wider community, is really very concerning. Please be more careful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chance The Rapper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex (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) 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]