User talk:SLMnovelli
October 2011[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Tribute act, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Areaseven (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
December 2011[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Murder of Eve Carson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Only one of your recent edits seems to have been deleted, that being the Vandalism on the page Murder of Eve Carson, which was entirely justified.
Wikipedia is built on referenced factual information, not personal thoughts and opinions, therefore any opinions you do add will likely be removed.
Samwalton9 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi SLMnovelli... I had a look at your recent edits to the Baywatch article. They were reverted, but I think they were good faith edits. The trouble with additions to articles about tv shows, books, comics, music, etc. is that sometimes another editor might look at it and believe that it's vandalism because it's ... well... sometimes outlandish. Then it turns out to be correct. I confess that I've been guilty of that on occasion.
This is one of the reasons why it's always a good idea to cite a reliable 3rd party source for additions to articles. It permits other editors and readers to check the information to make sure it's correct.
Happy editing! If you have any problems or questions, please feel free to let me know!
Wikipelli Talk 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012[edit]
I recently left a vandalism warning on this page; however, after taking a closer look at your edits, I see that warning was most likely unjustified, and I apologize. While I still believe I was justified in reverting the edits in question (on the Baywatch article), I was not justified in calling them vandalism; that is a breach of WP:AGF, which is central to Wikipedia. The main reason I reverted the edit was because you inserted the phrase, "who then dumps her for a rich widow old enough to be his grandmother" - that is a very subjective phrase, and everything on Wikipedia needs to be presented objectively. Personal interpretations are not generally accepted in Wikipedia articles. Once again, though, your edits were not vandalism, and I should not have labeled them as such. I take false accusations of vandalism very seriously from others, and when I make them myself, I deserve a thorough troutwhacking.
The warning has been removed, and you may disregard it. If you have any further questions, feel free to discuss them with me at my talk page. Please do not let this incident deter you from editing boldly! Your contributions are valuable to Wikipedia - sometimes those of us who patrol the recent changes get a little overzealous. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lady Antebellum[edit]
Hi SLMnovelli. Regarding your edit here: It contradicts what's written at http://ladyantebellum.com/bio All encyclopedia material must conform to verifiability policy. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
January 2014[edit]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Friends. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)