User talk:Deplasco

Ken Burns

You recently made a number of what I'm sure were good-faith edits to Ken Burns that I'm sure inadvertently violated a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, most significantly by adding uncited claims that appear to be original research — violating one of the core Wikipedia policies. Everything on Wikipedia has to be properly cited by a reliable source. You also removed citations, and violated certain Manual of Style guidelines. Please do not reinsert these violative edits, which may be construed as edit-warring. At this juncture, the proper course is to discuss you edits at the article's talk page to discuss where your claims came from. Additionally, there is no justification for removing reliable-source citations that back up pertinent information. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Aborn. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deplasco. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]