User talk:OO7-AAA

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, OO7-AAA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ray^Talk 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Mitt Romney article

Your recent editing history at Mitt Romney shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

You do not have consensus for the changes you want to make - explaining them is not enough, you need other editors to agree with the changes. Please discuss on Talk Tvoz/talk 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm Dwpaul. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shooting of Michael Brown, 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. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge for a discussion of common knowledge. This isn't. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Michael Brown

I reverted your edits to Shooting of Michael Brown. Please review Wikipedia:Common knowledge before adding material that you think is common knowledge – especially when that material involves living people. Also you marked your main edit, so to speak, as minor. Please review Help:Minor edit. Politrukki (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm Grand'mere Eugene. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Forbes contributor blogs

Hi - a quick note about "Contributor" blogs on Forbes.com: these are typically not viewed as reliable sources for statements of fact in Wikipedia's own voice. Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes staff (i.e., professional journalists or editors), but suppliers of user-generated content, and Forbes doesn't have a sufficient degree of editorial control, fact-checking, etc. over them. See Poynter Institute: Forbes has over 1,000 such "contributors" and "There is no traditional editing of contributors' copy, at least not prior to publishing" (link). So we do not use them for statements of fact. (They may sometimes be useful for opinion, subject to other policies like WP:WEIGHT, relevance, attribution, etc.)

--Neutrality^talk 22:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding edits relating to living or recently deceased people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 22:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a standard notification to people who edit in the topic area - as it says, it does not imply wrongdoing. Neutrality^talk 22:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]