User talk:Martinmocha96
August 2015[edit]
Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you made a change to an article, I Want to Hold Your Hand, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Velella Velella Talk 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Martinmocha96, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Martinmocha96! 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! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
September 2015[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at I Want to Hold Your Hand. 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 discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References etc[edit]
Greetings. I've had to revert your recent edits. They were not acceptably referenced. The title of a book is not enough. You must provide details including publisher, year of publication and, especially, specific page numbers. Any speculative commentary based on a publication must have a solid reference and it should be stated as "according to" rather than as established fact. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
November 2016[edit]
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Eric Clapton Stratocaster. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jews. Acroterion (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
December 2016[edit]
Hello, I'm Adotchar. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of medically significant spider bites have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Adotchar| reply here 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Hearing Aids To The Beatles Volume I: A Musician's Perspective[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Hearing Aids To The Beatles Volume I: A Musician's Perspective, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
August 2017[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories . You were previously given a level 4 POV. Don't start again. Meters (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)